Ayesha @ Nazma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR/Crime No. 196 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 352 BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Itiyathok, District-Gonda.

¶14

It is stated that applicant aged about 65 years, mother-in-law of the deceased, having no criminal history is in jail since 16.09.2025 for committing no offence.

¶15

It is further stated that story of the prosecution is complete false and concocted and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶16

It is further stated that in fact it is a case of suicide, which can be inferred from the injury found by the autopsy surgeon on the body of the deceased i.e. ligature mark present around the neck and cause of death is asphyxia due to antimortem hanging and reasons for committing suicide are not known to the applicant.

¶17

It is further stated that before the trial court the informant/Kamrul Nisha -mother of the deceased, Pappu/father of the deceased, Nazim Ali/cousin Uncle of the deceased and Akbar Ali/Maternal Uncle ('Mama') of the deceased, all witnesses of fact, have been examined before the trial court and these witness have not supported the story of the prosecution, as indicated in the FIR, and therefore all these witnesses were declared hostile and an opportunity of cross examination was given to learned Counsel appearing for the State, who cross examined these witnesses of fact, however, nothing could not elicited against the applicant during examination. Copies of these witnesses have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the present application.

¶18

It is further stated that Autopsy Surgeon has also been examined and according to the statement of Autopsy Surgeon, it is a case of suicide. A copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the present bail application.

¶19

It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶21

BAIL No. 956 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and statement(s) of witnesses of facts, who declared hostile before the trial court as also postmortem report and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶24

Let the applicant- Ayesha alias Nazma be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Application is disposed of.

¶36

February 11, 2026

¶37

Jyoti/-

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ayesha @ Nazma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayesha @ Nazma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Umesh @ Umesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shubham Pal vs Shri Rahul Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari Dist. Raebareli

Mr. X (Juvenile) Thru. Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Nandu @ Nand Kishore Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Nankau @ Babu Lal @ Devi Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Harish Chandra Yadav vs Manoj Singh, Up Ziladhikari / Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Sadar Lko.