Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52193 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 590 of 2025 Applicant :- Savita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi,Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prem Chandra,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri R. N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State- respondent and Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2024, under Sections 105, 123 B.N.S., Police Station Kadadham, District Kaushambi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is wife of the deceased and as per allegation, she administered poison to her husband by mixing the same in the food due to which, he died but entire allegation levelled against her is totally false. 4. He further submits that from the post-mortem report, it reflects, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and his viscera was preserved but now viscera report of the deceased is on record, which has been filed by the State in the counter affidavit and from its perusal, it reflects that deceased died due to consumption of almonium phosphide. 5. He further submits that however there is also an evidence against applicant that when deceased before his death was admitted in the hospital then he told that applicant gave him poison and this fact has been recorded in a video but considering the fact that deceased died due to consumption of almonium phosphide prima-facie his allegation appears to be false and it appears as there was matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and therefore on the basis of suspicion, he disclosed this fact to the witnesses. 6. He further submits that it is not possible to administer almonium phosphide through food and almonium phosphide could only be consumed by the deceased. 7. He placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 169. 8. He next submitted that it appears to be a case of suicide and it reflects that due to matrimonial dispute deceased committed suicide by consuming almonium phosphide. 9. He further submits that applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than five months. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that from the video clip of the deceased, it reflects, he specifically made allegation that applicant, who was his wife, gave him poison and at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve his disclosure and therefore, considering this fact, applicant should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant is wife of the deceased and she administered poison to him by mixing it in the food and there is also a video clip, which shows that deceased in the hospital before his death stated that applicant gave poison to him but viscera report of the deceased suggests that he died due to consumption of almonium phosphide. Considering the case of Jaipal (supra), it appears, due to pungent smell death by almonium phosphide is generally suicidal. 13. Further, considering the fact that matrimonial dispute between husband and wife was pending, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears, only due to matrimonial dispute under suspicion before his death, deceased disclosed that applicant gave him poison and possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out at this stage, specially considering the fact that admittedly deceased himself did not witness that applicant was mixing poison in his food. 14. Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than five months. 15. Further, law is settled unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and his/her bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Savita 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 him 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 9.4.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad