Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36782 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3414 of 2025 Applicant :- Pammi Alias Shameem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115(2), 123, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Inchauli, District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Muslim Rites on 16.4.2024. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a car as dowry, thereby had administered her some poisonous material and had dropped her at her maternal home on 3.9.2024 leaving her to die. The deceased person is stated to have succumbed to the injuries sustained on 7.9.2024 at about 04:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim has consumed some poisonous material at her maternal home, as such, there is no cause for the applicant to administer her poisonous material rather the prosecution story has been cooked up as an afterthought. Learned counsel has stated that the informant was very much present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken on 7.9.2024 and he is panch witness no.1, but he had not whispered a single word against any one. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and she has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.1.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that aluminum phosphide poison has been found in the viscera of the deceased person. 8. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Pammi Alias Shameem, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad