Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:653 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10465 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Kumari Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Anuj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Seema Kashyap Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Ms Seema Kashyap, learned counsel for complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated and is in jail since 21.07.2024 in Case Crime No.143 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, police station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report. As per FIR, the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, her son Manoj Saroj and other unknown persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 13.04.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 25.04.2024 i.e. after delay of 12 days without explaining the reason of delay. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and her son under Section 302 IPC, though the FIR has been lodged under Section 304 IPC. As per allegation of FIR, the present applicant along with her son administered some poisonous content in food while serving the same to the deceased. Since cause of death was not ascertained, therefore, VISCERA was preserved and after examination thereof, the poisonous content "Aluminium phosphide' was found. He has also stated that deceased had taken dinner in the house of present applicant and of her son and she is not aware as to how any poisonous content has been given to the deceased. She is also not aware as to whether her son Manoj Saroj has committed any mischief with him but she has not committed any offence. As per prosecution story, the present applicant had informed the brother of deceased about the fact that after taking dinner, medical condition of the deceased had become serious, therefore, he was admitted in hospital at Mau where he succumbed to death. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that had the present applicant intended to kill the deceased, she would not have informed the critical condition of the deceased to his brother. The applicant being lady, may be enlarged on bail granting her the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that applicant has no criminal history and charge sheet has been filed against her. Therefore, if the present applicant is enlarged on bail, she 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. 8. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having perused the material on record and without entering into merits of the issue, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail for the reason that no specific allegation has been levelled against her and she has no criminal history, therefore, she may be granted the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., also considering the undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let applicant- Raj Kumari Saroj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 India without previous permission of the court. 12. Before parting with, it is made clear that the bail has been granted to the present applicant considering the fact that she is lady and has been given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. but co-accused Manoj Saroj, son of present applicant may not seek parity with her case. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench