Smt. Surajmukhi vs State of U.P.

Bail application has been filed on behalf of accused appellant Smt. Surajmukhi, who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No.401 of 2011 (State Vs. Smt. Surajmukhi), arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2011, under Sections 366, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kagarol, District Agra.

¶12

As per the prosecution case seven accused persons including the appellant have kidnapped the minor daughter of informant having age of 16 years from the house of informant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the incident has occurred on 22.12.2010 but the FIR was registered after a delay of 22 days on 13.1.2011 for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is further submitted that general and common role of appellant and other accused persons has been assigned in the FIR as well as in the statement of victim recorded before the court below. It is argued that appellant was on bail during trial which liberty has not been misused by her and she is a lady, who is suffering from HIV. Submission is that the accused appellant has no criminal history and since hearing of the appeal may take sufficiently long, as such she be enlarged on bail. As per the custody certificate available on record period of incarceration undergone by the appellant is about one and a half years. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court in this case under Sections 366, 120-B IPC and the maximum sentence awarded to her is

¶14

CRLA No. 11949 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

seven years simple imprisonment under Section 120-B IPC.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made for grant of bail and submits that appellant has already been held guilty by the court below. It is submitted that the victim in her statement has specifically assigned the role of conspiracy alongwith other accused persons to appellant but the period of incarceration undergone by the accused appellant is not disputed.

¶18

Considering the fact that accused appellant has no criminal history, period of incarceration undergone by the appellant is about one and a half years, appellant is a lady, who is suffering from HIV, relevant documents available on record, facts submitted on behalf of the appellant, triable issues arise for consideration in the facts of the case and hearing of the appeal may take some more time, as such in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579, Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 17 SCC 446, Sohail Gohar Vs. State of M.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5013 of 2025, arising out of Crl. Appeal No.2058 of 2025) , without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant Smt. Surajmukhi is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Let the accused applicant/appellant Smt. Surajmukhi be released on bail in the above case on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that:-

¶20

(i) the appellant will co-operate in the hearing of the criminal appeal.

¶21

(ii) the appellant shall inform about the change of address, if any, within fifteen days, failing which the State shall be at liberty to request for cancellation of bail of appellant.

¶22

(iii) the appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities during the pendency of criminal appeal.

¶23

The sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of criminal appeal subject to depositing 50% of the total fine within a period of thirty days after release of the appellant from jail and remaining 50% fine shall remain stayed till the pendency of the criminal appeal.

¶24

CRLA No. 11949 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

It is made clear that, in case, the fine is not deposited during the aforesaid period the same shall be recovered by the trial court concerned, forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶27

On acceptance of bail bonds and deposition of fine, the trial court shall transmit photostat copies of relevant records thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.

¶28

(Order on Appeal)

¶29

Office is directed to get the paper book prepared within six weeks, if not prepared.

¶30

List the appeal for hearing in due course.

¶31

March 23, 2026 RA

¶32

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Surajmukhi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Surajmukhi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd Rahman @ Saddam and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Dr. Teg Bahadur vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohkam Singh @ Mokam Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of Up and 10 Others

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another