Indrawati vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3517 of 2026

Indrawati

	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deo Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 13

¶5

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0595 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238(a) B.N.S (old Sections 302, 201 I.P.C), Police Station Padua, District- Lakhimpur Kheri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that on 15.9.2025, an FIR has been lodged under Section 103(1) of BNS (old Section 302 IPC), against two named accused persons, including the present applicant, alleging therein that the applicant was suspicious about the illicit relationship of her husband with the wife of the informant and, due to which, she used to keep enmity. On 14.9.2025, at around 9:00 a.m., the wife of the informant, Jhumki Devi (now deceased) had gone towards the agricultural field and near the agricultural field of Basant Gaur, the applicant and co-accused killed the wife of the informant by assaulting her with a sharp-edged weapon and a danda. At around 6:00 p.m., the body of the deceased was found.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant is not an eyewitness of the alleged incident and there is no eyewitness to the incident who could have told about the alleged incident committed by the applicant and the co-accused. It is further submitted that the informant in his statement has stated that he has full belief that the applicant and the coaccused had killed his wife and similar statement was given by other witnesses/residents of village.

¶10

It is further submitted that merely on the basis of presumption of the informant regarding involvement of the applicant along with the co-accused,

¶11

BAIL No. 3517 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

the charge-sheet has been filed and, except that, no other evidence has been found against the applicant. It is further submitted that the recovery of alleged hasiya has been shown from the pointing out of the applicant and the coaccused, whereas there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and she is in jail since 16.9.2025, the applicant being a woman is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 B.N.S.S (corresponding Section 437 Cr.P.C)..

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application, but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie , it appears that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. From the statement of the informant and other witnesses, it appears that on the basis of presumption, the applicant has been made accused in the present case. The alleged recovery of hasiya from the pointing out of the applicant and the co-accused is in the absence of any independent witness and also considering the fact that the applicant is lady and she is entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 480 B.N.S.S/437 Cr.P.C, thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶17

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Indrawati 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶21

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(v) 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.

¶24

BAIL No. 3517 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶27

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶28

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶29

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶31

May 15, 2026 DiVYa

¶32

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indrawati v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrawati v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

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

Uma Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dhiru Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suneel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimal Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.