Neetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8487 of 2025

Neetu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.78 of 2025, under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 105, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Jayas, District Amethi.

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 07.04.2025 at about 10:20 p.m., eight named accused persons along with some unknown individuals, armed with lathis, dandas, and an axe, attacked the informant?s husband with a common intention, causing him to fall to the ground with serious injuries. On hearing his cries, the informant's father-in-law, Ramshankar Saroj, and mother-in-law reached the spot. Ramshankar Saroj was also assaulted, resulting in fractures in both limbs and grievous head injuries. Both injured persons were initially taken to CHC Tiloi and then referred to a 200-bed hospital, and subsequently to AIIMS, Raebareli, where the informant's husband succumbed to his injuries during treatment.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady who has been falsely implicated in the present case. Co-accused persons namely Bhanmati, Seema and Kanchan have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.8.2025, 21.8.2025 and 27.8.2025 respectively. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused persons.

¶13

BAIL No. 8487 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of the injured witness, Sartaji Devi. It is submitted that although Sartaji Devi has claimed to have sustained injuries, she has not named the applicant in her statement, nor has she undergone any medical examination. Another injured witness, Ram Shankar Saroj, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has assigned a general role to the applicant along with other co-accused persons.

¶16

Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the medico-legal examination report of the injured Ram Shankar Saroj, which is on record as Annexure-13 to the bail application. It is submitted that a perusal of the said examination conducted at CHC reveals that no injury or fracture, as alleged in the FIR, has been found on the person of Ram Shankar Saroj.

¶17

It is further submitted that, as far as the deceased is concerned, except for Injury No. 1, none of the other injuries were on any vital part of the body. The cause of death has been stated to be due to head injury and its resulting complications. It is contended that from the prosecution case, it is not clear as to who specifically caused Injury No. 1 to the deceased.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Sachin Kumar and two others, in their confessional statements, have stated that the incident took place in two parts. Even in those statements, there is no specific allegation against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant, being a family member, has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶19

Upon a query made by the Court, learned A.G.A., on the basis of the case diary, as well as learned counsel for the complainant, could not show any evidence of fracture sustained by Ram Shankar Saroj or any injury to Sartaji Devi. The alleged fracture of Ram Shankar Saroj, as mentioned in the FIR, is not corroborated by any medical or documentary material on record.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶21

On due consideration of the cause of death of the deceased, it prima facie does not appear from the prosecution case as to who specifically caused

¶22

BAIL No. 8487 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

the head injury to the deceased; allegations have been made against eight named and some unknown assailants; as per the confessional statements of the co-accused, the complicity of the applicant appears to be doubtful; even in the statements of the injured witnesses, Sartaji Devi and Ram Shankar Saroj, only general allegations have been levelled; the applicant is a lady, having no criminal antecedents, and is languishing in jail since 17.05.2025; the charge-sheet in the case has already been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶26

Let the applicant Neetu be released on bail in the aforesaid First Information Report number, subject to her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 of the BNS).

¶32

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, and in

¶33

BAIL No. 8487 of 2025

¶34

4

¶35

order to secure her presence, if a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS) is issued and she fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 of the BNS).

¶36

September 8, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶37

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Jabaaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.