Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42170 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3462 of 2025 Applicant :- Suman Kumari Bharatiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar,Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dan Bahadur,G.A.,Vikas Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri J. Nagar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 320 of 2024, under Sections 105 B.N.S., Police Station Sarai Memrez, District Ganganagar during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.12.2024 against applicant and her husband and according to the FIR applicant and her husband run a hospital and on 21.12.2024 daughter-in-law of the informant was admitted in their hospital and without any proper investigation, her operation was conducted and when her condition started deteriorating then applicant and her husband turned her out from their hospital and thereafter informant had taken her to Swaroop Rani Hospital and on 30.12.2024, she died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with her husband. He further submits, admittedly husband of the applicant is a qualified Surgeon and on the date when operation was conducted, the informant got discharged her daughter-in-law and subsequently, it appears, due to infection she died, therefore, neither applicant nor her husband can be held liable for the death of daughter-in-law of the informant. 6. He further submits, applicant is not a doctor, therefore, she did not conduct the operation and from this angle too she cannot be held liable if subsequently daughter-in-law of the informant died. 7. 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 01.01.2025. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, it is a case of negligence and from the facts of the case, it is apparent that without any proper investigation in haste negligently operation was conducted but they could not dispute the fact that operation was conducted by the husband of the informant, who was qualified Surgeon and from the post mortem, it reflects, she died due to Septicemic Shock. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 01.01.2025. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, it appears, in the hospital of the applicant her husband conducted the operation of the daughter-in- law of the informant and when her condition started deteriorating then they turned her out from their hospital due to which she died but from the counter affidavit filed by the State it reflects, husband of the applicant is qualified Surgeon and considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, cannot be ruled out. Further, applicant is not the doctor and it appears, she did not conduct the operation. 12. Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 01.01.2025. 13. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant - Suman Kumari Bharatiya 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 21.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad