Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52936 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7210 of 2025 Applicant :- Suman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned Panel Lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Suman seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.134 of 2024, under Sections 302, 120B, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut. 3. The present matter started on G.D. Entry No.28 dated 09.06.2024 transcribed at 10:18 hours at Police Station Inchauli disclosing therein that PRV-570 has through telephone informed that while being on duty, it has received an information that a child has been kidnapped on which they went there and found the dead body of a child lying in the Jungle of village Dhanpur, which was having rope tied around his neck. The inquest on the said dead body was conducted on the same day from 11:25 AM. The postmortem on the said body was conducted on 09.06.2024 from 6:10 PM in which the doctors found nine injuries including a ligature mark and the cause of death was opined asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. 4. Subsequently, a first information report was lodged on 09.06.2024 at 20:40 hours by Gopal, under Sections 302, 120B, 506 IPC against Manoj, Suman and unknown persons alleging therein that he and his family were having enmity since some time with Manoj with regard to a dispute of land. On 09.06.2024, Suprabha his wife was busy in household work and his son Puneet aged about six years was playing in the courtyard where at about 8:00 AM Suman came and took his son. When his wife called them then they had left to the house. Suman used to visit his house as she used to do the work in his field and, thus, his wife thought that she has taken the child for playing but Manoj, Suman and others in conspiracy have murdered his son. The two named accused have taken his son along with their son so that no one may have any suspicion to the field of sugarcane of Manveer where Manoj was present from before. Jai Bhagwan, his father and Smt. Sadbhava, his mother were in their near by field from before, who on hearing the sought of a child stopped there and went there at about 8:30 AM and found that accused Manoj, Suman and others have tied the son Puneet with rope and have murdered him by strangulation. On crying loudly, people of near by reached there and police also reached there on getting information. The FIR be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution case is totally false and concocted. It is submitted that although Jai Bhagwan and Smt. Sadbhava are shown as the alleged eye witnesses but the fact that they remained silent on 9.6.2024 from 8:30 AM till 9.6.2024, 20:40 hours, which is for about 11 hours and then the present FIR has been lodged is totally unbelievable. It is submitted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police of PRV who reached the place of occurrence and on their information, inquest on the said body was conducted after which its postmortem was conducted and till that time the present FIR was not in existence, which was subsequently lodged at 20:40 hours. It is submitted that as such the story of the applicant taking away the deceased from the house also becomes suspect. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and Manoj as stated in paragraph 23 of the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 of B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 11.6.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of taking away the deceased from the house and then two eye witnesses have seen the applicant and co-accused with one other person in the field with the deceased committing the incident and as such the implication of the applicant is there. It is further submitted that the ransom notes were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant on her confession from her house. It is submitted that the applicant is, thus, involved in the matter and the bail be thus dismissed. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the dead body of the deceased was first recovered by the police of PRV. On their information, the inquest was conducted after which the postmortem was conducted. The first information about dead body was given to the police of PRV, which was given to the police station at 10:18 AM. The inquest and the postmortem was then conducted. Till such time, there was nothing coming forward as to the description and naming of the accused persons. Subsequently, the first information report is lodged at 20:40 hours and then the applicant is named therein and two eye witnesses are disclosed. The applicant is a lady. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the applicant Suman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Mini Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad