Sameena Vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 462 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation she has been made accused in the present matter.

¶14

He further submitted that actually applicant was mother of Rashid who was accused in a case and was doing pairvi on his behalf and when he obtained bail then on his behalf sureties were filed but subsequently son of the applicant absconded and it was found that sureties filed on his behalf were fake.

¶15

He further submitted that for fake sureties applicant is not responsible and she was only doing parivi on behalf of his son in the Court.

¶16

He further submitted that applicant never arranged the fake sureties for her son and if after obtaining bail order his son managed fake sureties and thereafter absconded then applicant being his mother cannot be responsible.

¶17

He further submitted that even applicant is lady and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 1.12.2025 i.e. for last more than five months.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

BAIL No. 4903 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

However, as per allegation applicant was mother of one accused Rashid and she was doing pairvi on his behalf and he after released on bail absconded and subsequently it was found that his sureties were fake but from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant was the person who arranged the alleged fake sureties for her son. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if being mother of an accused applicant was doing pairvi on his behalf and subsequently on his behalf fake sureties were filed and her son absconded after released on bail then applicant cannot be held responsible atleast for filing of fake sureties.

¶23

Further, applicant is lady and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 1.12.2025 i.e. for last more than five months.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant- Sameena, 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:-

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

May 5, 2026 Ankita

¶33

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sameena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameena 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

Nitendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Rambhavan vs State of U.P.

Raju vs State of U.P.

Ankur Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.