Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40958 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6494 of 2025 Applicant :- Kunti Devi @ Munni And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rashmi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Ms. Rashmi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicants, the present applicants are in jail since 13.05.2025 in Case Crime No.445 of 2024, under Sections 105/351 (3) of B.N.S., Police Station – Masauli, District – Barabanki. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in the case as they have not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 15.09.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 29.10.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay, however, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged on the application being filed under Section 173 (4) of BNSS and that application has been filed on 16.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that in the FIR, the complainant has herself admitted the fact that her husband (since deceased) was found in semi-conscious condition influenced with liquor and the present applicants were threatening her husband on account of trivial dispute, therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.4 of the bail application, which is a forensic science laboratory report dated 08.05.2025 of the husband of the informant, which indicates that content available in the body of the deceased was Ethyl alcohol and there is possibility that the husband of the informant might have consumed spurious liquor as he was habitual drunkard. Applicant no.1 is a lady having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, therefore, she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. Applicant no.2 is the brother of applicant no.1 and he is also having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and no specific allegation has been levelled against him. Further, the applicants undertake that they shall co- operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicants shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 4. Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the bail application but he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicants. 5. 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 there is unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR; in the FIR, the complainant has herself admitted the fact that her husband (since deceased) was found in semi-conscious condition influenced with liquor and the present applicants were threatening her husband on account of trivial dispute, therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion; the forensic science laboratory report of the husband of the informant, which indicates that content available in the body of the deceased was Ethyl alcohol and there is possibility that the husband of the informant might have consumed spurious liquor as he was habitual drunkard; the applicants are having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; applicant no.1 being lady may be given the benefit of Section 480 of BNSS and undertaking of the applicants that they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicants on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicants- Kunti Devi alias Munni and Lalji be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on both of them 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicants 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 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law. (v) The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 17.7.2025 RBS/- Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench