Shashikala vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36498

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8705 of 2025

Applicant :- Shashikala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.261 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and six others and according to the FIR, on 06.11.2024 at about 4 p.m. husband of the informant had gone from his home but did not return and subsequently on 08.11.2024 his dead-body was recovered from a pond. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased and she alongwith her family members, committed his murder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it appears, on the basis of suspicion on the ground that applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased, she has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence

¶11

and except suspicion and one last seen evidence given by witness Jiya Lal, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶12

He further submits that even evidence of last seen given by witness Jiya Lal does not appear to be convincing.

¶13

He further submits that however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is lady and she is in jail in the present matter since 13.011.2024.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, applicant is named in the FIR but it appears, on the basis of suspicion, she has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that she was having illicit relationship with the deceased and it reflects, apart from suspicion, however, witness Jiya Lal tried to give evidence of last seen against her but considering his statement, which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that his statement does not appear to be convincing, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶18

Further, however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but it reflects, that case relates to minor offence.

¶19

Further, applicant is lady and she is in jail in the present matter since 13.011.2024.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Shashikala , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted.

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.3.2025/Zafar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashikala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala v. State of U.P.

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

Akash vs State of U.P.

Mohd Irfan vs State of U.P.

Atul vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Ramu vs State of U.P.

Radheshyam Pasi vs State of U.P.

Manoj vs State of U.P.