Smt. Haseena vs State of U.P. and Another

Learned AGA states that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal. Copy of the notice provided by the learned AGA be kept on record.

¶12

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.3.2025 passed by the Special Judge [S.C./S.T. Act], Muzaffar Nagar in Bail Application No. 1466 of 2025 [Smt. Haseena Vs. State] , and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 32 of 2025, U/s 109[1], 352, 351[2], 3 [5] of B.N.S. & Section 3 [2] [V] of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegation of firing upon Priyanshu, son of informant, has been made against the appellant, but the said allegation is false and concocted. It has been submitted that accused Danish fired upon Priyanshu but he escaped and did not suffer from any injury despite that two bullets were fired by accused Danish. Present appellant is the mother of the accused-Danish and has no role in the alleged offence. However, she has been implicated only because she happens to be the mother of accused-Danish. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that the

¶14

CRLA No. 7340 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant is not entitled to bail.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶21

Let the appellant- Smt. Haseena, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which s he is suspected.

¶26

(v) The appellant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

CRLA No. 7340 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶30

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶31

November 10, 2025 SK

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Haseena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Haseena v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Govind Shri vs Avneesh Kumar and 2 Others

Maqsood Aleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Inshad vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Soniya vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shobhit Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another