Kamna Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0083 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(2) BNS, P.S. Kothi district Barabanki.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶13

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that while the injured Umesh Rawat was getting the land under his shed levelled with soil on 29.3.2025, regarding the dispute of partition, his brother Raj Kamal has beaten the complainant with sticks, bricks and stones and daughter of Raj Kamal, Komal has pushed the daughter in law of the injured, due to that, she fell down.

¶14

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured has received simple injuries. It is a case of false implication. No offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicants shall cooperate in the trial.

¶16

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. He submits that after giving statement, the inured Umesh Rawat has got recorded his second statement to the investigating officer where he has substituted the name of Komal with applicant No.1

¶17

NABAIL No. 155 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

Kamna Devi. He submits that injured has suffered a fracture in the finger.

¶20

6. I have considered the submission and perused the record as also statement of the injured and injury report.

¶21

A perual of statement of Umesh Rawat shows that specific role of beating and causing injury is on Raj Kamal. He has not taken the name of applicant No.1 during his first statement to the investigating officer. However, it apepars that during second statement, he has made improvement, still no role of causing grievous injury has been assigned to the applicant No.1 whereas applicant No.2 has been assigned specific role of causing grievous injury.

¶22

7.Considering the above aspects of the matter, complicity of applicant No.2 in committing the offence as also statement of the injured is corroborated by injury report, the application for anticipatory bail qua applicant No.2 Raj Kamal is dismissed.

¶23

As regards applicant No.1, in the first statement of the injured, name of applicant No.1 has not been taken, she is a lady having no criminal history, charge sheet in the case has been filed, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant No.1 that she shall cooperate in the trial, judgment of Supreme Court in Musheer Alam versus The State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant No.1.

¶24

7. In view of the above, it is provided that the applicant No.1 Kamna Devi shall surrender before the concerned court within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On such surrender, the said applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶25

The applicant No.1 shall cooperate in the trial and she will not influence the witnesses.The applicant No.1 shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit and proper may also be imposed.

¶26

8. In case of default, it would be open for the trial court to proceed in

¶27

NABAIL No. 155 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

accordance with law.

¶30

9. The application qua applicant No.1 is allowed accordingly.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)