Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75029 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7649 of 2024 Applicant :- Karishma @ Maansi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sayeed Saif Ullah,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. There are allegations in the F.I.R that applicant was having extra-marital affair with co-accused who was husband of deceased. It is alleged that they wanted to marry and therefore they have caused the murder of deceased. Counsel for the applicant submits that the role of committing the offence of murder by way of strangulation and has been assigned to the co-accused, who was husband of deceased. The applicant has been implicated in this case and assigned the role of conspirator. She is in jail since 30.12.2023 and has no criminal history to her credit. Before the trial court, statement of P.W.-1 is being recorded. Trial will take time conclude. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Karishma @ Maansi, involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Sarsawa, District- Saharanpur, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. (v) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad