Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41195 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6457 of 2025 Applicant :- Neetu @ Rangoli Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Chaurasiya,Keshav Ram Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Shri Dhiraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has requested that he may be permitted to delete the opposite party no.2 from the array of opposite parties. On such request, he is permitted to delete the opposite party no.2, during course of the day. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 30.12.2024 in S.T. No.163 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.511 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2)A of BNS, 2023, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the specific allegation has not been levelled against any person inasmuch as the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. However, during course of the trial, the culpability of the present applicant and her husband, namely, Jay Singh Chaurasiya has been surfaced. Further, the husband of the present applicant was known to Vikas Pal (since deceased), such Vikas Pal was having relation with one Sarita. The victim - Vikas Pal murdered in a mysterious circumstances and Sarita has committed suicide. At the time of incident in question, both Vikas Pal and Sarita were in the same room. There is no eye witness account and there is no material or evidence to suggest that the present applicant has committed the crime. 5. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant and her husband were the planners to eliminate Vikas Pal and both managed one gadasa to be placed in the room where Vikas Pal and Sarita were residing. It appears that for any reasons which is not known to the applicant, Sarita killed Vikas Pal and thereafter, she committed suicide. The present applicant has been implicated under Section 61(2)A of BNS i.e. criminal conspiracy, inasmuch as she has not killed Vikas Pal or Sarita. There is no motive of the present applicant to kill any of the aforesaid persons. The present applicant is a mother of two years old child, who is in an abandoned condition in his home inasmuch as there is no one in the family to look after him properly as his husband and the co-accused are also in jail. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Chargesheet has been filed. Besides, being lady, the applicant may be enlarged on bail granting her the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C (now Section 480 BNSS). Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that on the pointing out of the present applicant and her husband, gadasa, which has been used to kill Vikas Pal, has been recovered. Though, he has submitted, on the basis of material available on record, that the present applicant has herself not killed the Vikas Pal or Sarita but she was instrumental in such offence, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that in the impugned FIR, the specific allegation has not been levelled against any person as the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons; during course of the trial, the culpability of the present applicant and her husband has been surfaced; there is no eye witness account; there is no material or evidence to suggest that the present applicant has committed the crime.; there is no motive of the present applicant to kill Vikas Pal or Sarita; the present applicant is a mother of two years old child, who is in an abandoned condition in his home and there is no one in the family to look after him properly as his husband and co-accused are also in jail; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; chargesheet has been filed; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. (now Section 480 BNSS) and undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Neetu @ Rangoli be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 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 (now Section 269 of BNS, 2023). (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 of BNSS, 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 (now Section 208 of BNS, 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 CrPC (now Section 351 of BNSS, 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench