Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3582 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46598 of 2024 Applicant :- Subhadra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 287 of 2024, under Sections 131, 352, 105, 115(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.09.2024 against applicant and others and according to the FIR on 20.09.2024 at about 09.30 PM applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the brother of the informant and due to the assault made by them he sustained serious injuries due to which he died on 28.09.2024 in the hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a lady and she is Bhabhi of the informant and deceased and on the basis of false allegation, she has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits, incident is said to have taken place on 20.09.2024 and deceased died on 30.09.2024 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.09.2024, therefore, there is delay in lodging the FIR. 6. He further submits, from perusal of the FIR and the statement of the informant it could not be reflected that he was eye witness and during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Pooja Sachan and Shailendra Kumar Sachan and they claimed themselves to be eye witnesses and they stated, some fight took place between deceased and applicant and thereafter deceased fell down and sustained injuries but from their statements it could not be reflected, applicant was having intention to cause death of the deceased. 7. He further submits, from the statement of witness Shailendra Kumar Sachan it reflects that applicant herself called the Ambulance and sent the deceased to the hospital where unfortunately during treatment he died. 8. He further submits, from perusal of post mortem report it reflects, however, deceased sustained as many as six injuries but all the six injuries were on non vital part and he died due to Complication of Cervical spine and head injury, therefore, present matter does not travel beyond the Section 105(II) B.N.S. 9. He further submits, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 20.10.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, applicant is bhabhi of the deceased and as per allegation she along with her family members badly beaten the deceased due to which he died but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after ten days from the date of alleged incident. 13. Further, after perusing the FIR and statement of informant recorded during investigation it could not be reflected that he was eye witness and however it appears during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two eye witnesses Pooja Sachan and Shailendra Kumar Sachan and from perusal of their statements it reflects that some quarrel took place between deceased and applicant and during quarrel he fell down and sustained injuries but from their statements it could not be refleted that applicant was having intention to cause death of deceased. 14. Further, from the statement of Shailendra Kumar Sachan it also reflects that after the incident applicant herself called the Ambulance and sent the deceased to the hospital. 15. Further, from the post mortem report it reflects, however, deceased sustained as many as six injuries but all the six injuries were on non vital part and deceased died due to Complication of Cervical spine and head injury, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even present case does not travel beyond Section 105(II) B.N.S. cannot be completely ruled out. 16. Further, applicant is a lady and there is no specific allegation against her and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 20.10.2024. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant - Subhadra 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:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (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. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. 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. 21. 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. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad