Shazama vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39126

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9240 of 2025

Applicant :- Shazama Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gulab Chandra Tiwari,Vivek Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Shazama, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Nazreen Bano. It is submitted that Nikah of Nazreen Bano was solemnized with Siddiqui Raza @ Salman Sekh the son of the applicant on 28.05.2022. It is further submitted that applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that Siddiqui Raza @ Salman Sekh the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 494 of 2025 (Siddiqui Raza @ Salman Sekh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 6 to the affidavit. The same reads as under:

¶10

"1. List has been revised.

¶11

2. Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District -

¶13

Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not assist the Court properly, as such, I myself have perused the record and the case diary with the assistance of learned AGA and found the following grounds:-

¶15

(i) The FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only and it is delayed by more than one year and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶16

(ii) The deceased's body was exhumed after a delay of over one year. Notably, the postmortem report revealed that several body parts were missing, including one upper tooth, two lower teeth, certain bones, and some fingers. Despite this, neither the inquest proceedings nor the post-mortem report could ascertain the cause of her death.

¶17

(iii) The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2024, having no criminal history.

¶18

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶19

6. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶20

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶21

8. Let the applicant- Siddiqui Raza @ Salman Sekh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

¶26

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.01.2025. It is submitted further that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS/437 Cr.P.C..

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the husband of the deceased has been granted bail.

¶28

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Siddiqui Raza @ Salman Sekh the husband of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025. The applicant is a lady.

¶29

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Let the applicant Shazama , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶31

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶32

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶34

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶35

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If

¶36

in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶37

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶38

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶39

The bail application is allowed .

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶41

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 M. ARIF

¶42

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶43

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

Shazama v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shazama 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Viresh vs State of U.P.

Nepali Urf Imran vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh @ Aryan vs State of U.P.

Anu @ Ashoka vs State of U.P.

Wariyarshri vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.