Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11006 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1482 of 2025 Applicant :- Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 20.9.2022 in Case Crime No. 265 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station- Jayas, District- Raebareli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned FIR which has been lodged against five accused persons including the present applicant. The present applicant is the wife of the deceased. As per allegation of the FIR, the present applicant with the help of co-accused Vinod killed her husband. The present applicant allegedly held the legs of her husband and co-accused Vinod strangulated him. As per postmortem report hide- bone is fractured as cause of death is throttling. Learned counsel has further stated that the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the statements of some villagers to the effect that she was having illicit relationship with the co-accused Vinod but that allegation is absolutely incorrect. There is no eye-witness account or last seen evidence. There is no earlier complaint against the present applicant lodged by her husband for having any illicit relationship with the co-accused. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history. She undertakes that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Keeping in view the total period of incarceration, which is about 2 years and 5 months, the present applicant may be granted bail. Besides, being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the contents and allegations of the F.I.R. and other material available on record, the fact that the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the statements of some villagers; there is no eye- witness account or last seen evidence; the present applicant is having no previous criminal history; the undertaking of the applicant that she shall co- operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. Further, keeping in view the total period of incarceration, which is about 2 years and 5 months and the fact that the applicant is a lady and she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the present applicant- Soni be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 9. It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that being a lady she is given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS, therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench