Neelam Singh @ Deepa vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Heard Ms. Tanya Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

2.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No. 249 of 2025, under Section 108, 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao.

¶12

Vide order dated 27.11.2025 this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 27.11.2025 referred, reads as under:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶14

2. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.249 of 2025, under Section 108, 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao.

¶15

3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that son of the informant was married to the applicant on 02.03.2024 and subsequently, relations were not cordial and because of the disputes and payments made, the son of the informant had committed suicide. Suicide note on record records that on account of the harassment and threats, he had committed suicide. Cause of death is antemortem hanging.

¶16

5. Learned AGA opposes the bail application.

¶17

6. Considering the suicide note and the postmortem report, prima-facie, abetment at the instance of the applicant who is the wife as defined under BNS is apparently missing, as such, considering the law as laid down in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. v. Inspector of Police; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, a case for interim anticipatory bail is made out. 7. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Neelam Singh @ Deepa be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(a) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will co-operate with the investigation;

¶19

(b) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court;

¶20

(c) 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

¶21

NABAIL No. 1761 of 2025

¶22

2

¶23

officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

8. List this case after six weeks.

¶25

9. In the meanwhile, respondents may file objection. "

¶26

The learned AGA has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact to the facts which have been pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned AGA has also failed to point out any fact on which basis it can be inferred that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Neelam Singh @ Deepa till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶31

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶32

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶34

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶35

February 25, 2026 Preeti

¶36

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam Singh @ Deepa v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Singh @ Deepa v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rama Kant Srivastava vs Shri Haratheesh H.A. Posted as Addl. General Manager/ Unit Head Iti Ltd. Raibareli and Another

Shakir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Dist. Lko. and 8 Others

Jwala Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

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

Bal Krishna vs Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Engineer-in-Chief Development and Head of Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another