Ramshri @ Bandariya Bali @ Bua vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11962 of 2026

¶2

Ramshri @ Bandariya Bali @ Bua

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Atul Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2026, under Sections 296 B.N.S. and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant had no role whatsoever in the running of the alleged brothel nor was engaged in any form of sex trade. The alleged recovery of incriminating materials is wholly false and fabricated. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The maximum punishment which can be imposed on conviction is upto seven years. It is next contended that co-accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Ramji have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.04.2026 and 06.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12914 of 2026, Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., and 11291 of 2026, Ramji v. State of U.P., respectively. The applicant is a lady aged 85 years and is in jail since 27.02.2026 having no criminal history and if she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the

¶12

BAIL No. 11962 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Ramji have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has remained confined for more than one and half month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ramshri @ Bandariya Bali @ Bua, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that she:

¶16

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶18

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶19