HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12211 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Priya @ Pinki @ Banta, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hathras rejecting the Bail Application No. 1607 of 2025 (Priya @ Pinki @ Banta Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238 BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandarau, District Hathras and with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.09.2025 by Krishna @ Swami against Smt. Somwati alleging therein that that he is a resident of Hathras and his daughter Anabhya aged about 6 years was playing outside the house with Kartik the son of his brother Vijay Pal on 03.09.2025 at about 10:00 pm from where she suddenly disappeared. She was searched till 01:00 pm and then her dead body was found wrapped in a gunny bag in a well near his house. Her neck was found to be wrapped by a white colour gamchha and tongue was protruding out. He has a suspicion that Somwati has committed the incident. The postmortem examination of Km. Anabhya @ Arabi was conducted on 04.09.2025 in which the doctor found a single ligature mark which was noted as under: "Ligature mark 21cm x 1.5cm continuous & horizontal present over neck Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Saksham Srivastava, Shashi Bhushan Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Kumar Sharma Priya @ Pinki @ Banta .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) which is 3cm below from right ear and 3cm below chin and 3cm below from left ear. Base of grove brown in colour. Subcutaneous tissue underneath ligature mark is ecchymosed." The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. The hyoid bone was found to be fractured. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the implication of the appellant has surfaced in the matter during investigation. It is further submitted that the investigation has concluded and a charge sheet dated 01.11.2025 has been submitted against the appellant and a minor boy named 'K'. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature. There is no eye witness to the murder. It is submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer allegedly states to have collected two pieces of broken bangles from the said well on 09.09.2025 on the pointing out of Smt. Somwati the mother-in-law of the appellant and then collected two other bangles from the house of the appellant allegedly of the same type and thus a conclusion was drawn that the appellant was involved in the matter. It is submitted further that the confessional statement of the appellant is being used against him. It is submitted that subsequently the supplementary statement of the first informant was recorded during investigation in which he states that he saw the appellant carrying something in a gunny bag which was the dead body of his daughter. It is submitted that the same is an afterthought and just in order to falsely implicate the appellant. It is submitted that links in the chain of circumstances are conspicuously missing. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the bail application in appeal and is in jail since 06.09.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State opposed the appeal and prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased is a child aged about 6 years and the appellant had a motive to commit the offence since she deceased had seen the appellant with a minor boy in a compromising position and thus she was murdered. It is submitted that even two pieces of broken bangles were recovered from well from where the dead body was recovered which are identical to that of the bangles used by the appellant which was given by her mother-in-law. It is submitted that thus links in the chain of circumstances are complete. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the appellant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the appellant has surfaced during investigation. There is no eye witness to the murder. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and thus there are no chances of tampering of evidence or not cooperating with the investigation. The appellant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The matter is of circumstantial in nature. CRLA No. 12211 of 2025 2 Links in the of circumstances are missing. 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 appellant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the appellant- Priya @ Pinki @ Banta, 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 appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant 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 209 BNS/174-A I.P.C. (v) The appellant 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 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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 269 BNS/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 appellant. 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 CRLA No. 12211 of 2025 3 appellant to prison. 11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hathras is hereby set aside. May 15, 2026 M. ARIF CRLA No. 12211 of 2025 4 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad