Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84937 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4376 of 2025 Applicant :- Munni Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 584 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 103(1), 238, 333 BNS, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 108 BNS and other sections but subsequently case was converted under section 103 BNS. 5. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects that as per allegation deceased was having relationship with co-accused Surjeet and due to this reason very often dispute arose amongst deceased, applicant and other accused persons and applicant and other accused persons, on the date of incident also beaten her and thereafter by bolting the door from inside, she committed suicide but when from the post mortem report of the deceased, it revealed that actually deceased died due to strangulation then during investigation when statements of witnesses were recorded including statement of informant then they started making allegation that applicant alongwith others committed, murder of the deceased by strangulating her and they witnessed the incident. He further submitted that the statements of these witnesses recorded during investigation, prima facie, appears to be unconvincing and no reliance can be placed on such hypothetical version. 6. He further submitted that deceased admittedly found dead due to strangulation in her house and there is no cogent evidence which can suggests that applicant who is lady after entering in her home, strangulated her and it appears as earlier very often dispute arose between applicant side and deceased due to the relationship of the applicant with co-accused Surjeet therefore, after her death applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith others. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation including statement of the informant it reflects they were eye witnesses and they witnessed the incident while applicant and others were strangulating the deceased but from the FIR it reflects that even as per informant deceased i.e. her mother committed suicide and in the FIR she did not allege that applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased and considering this fact, prima facie, story narrated by the witnesses in their statements appears to be doubtful. Further even their statements do not appear to be convincing. 11. Further, admittedly, deceased died in her own house and there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant either entered in the house of the deceased or committer her murder. 12. Further applicant is lady and she is not having any previous criminal history to her credit and from the record, it reflects that dispute arose between applicant and deceased were pending with regard to her relationship with co-accused Surjeet and considering these facts, argument advanced by learned counsel for hte applicant that due to that dispute applicant has been roped in the present matter cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 13. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 4.9.2024 i.e. for last eight months. 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-Munni Devi, 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 her 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 her 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 :- 20.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad