Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88845 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16471 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Rani Alias Pratibha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 315 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.09.2024 at 05.02 hours against applicant and three others including her husband and as per FIR on 04.09.2024 wife of the informant along with her one year old daughter had gone towards the house of co-accused Vidya Devi and Pappu and when he verified from them then they informed that she had gone in the house of the applicant and her husband Dharmendra and subsequently dead body of the wife of the informant was found and according to the informant applicant along with other accused committed her murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, technically this is this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, till date the bail application of the applicant has not been decided on merit. 5. She further submits, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly it is a case of circumstantial evidence and from the FIR it reflects, it is based on suspicion. 6. She further submits, however, during investigation, as per prosecution, dead body of the deceased was thrown from the car, which was registered in the name of co-accused Dharmendra, who was unfortunately husband of the applicant, but on this ground applicant cannot be held responsible. 7. She further submits, it appears, only being wife of co-accused Dharmendra applicant has been made accused in the present matter and there is no cogent and admissible evidence which can connect her with the instant crime. 8. She further submits, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 18.09.2024 i.e. for last more than eight months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR along with her husband and there is allegation that applicant illegally wanted to perform second marriage of the deceased and when deceased had gone to meet her in her house then applicant along with her husband committed her murder and thrown her dead body but could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant was last seen along with deceased. 10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that the car from which the dead body alleged to have been thrown was registered in the name of co-accused Dharmendra, who, however, was husband of the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, this is this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn. 13. As far as merit of the case is concerned, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with several others including her husband i.e. co-accused Dharmendra but it reflects, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been named in the FIR. 14. Further, however, during investigation it was found that dead body of the deceased was thrown from the car of the husband of the applicant but there is no evidence that applicant was either sitting in that vehicle or applicant was ever last seen along with deceased and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only being wife of co-accused Dharmendra, who appears to be principal accused, applicant has been made accused in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15. 15. Further, applicant is a lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 18.09.2024 i.e. for last more than eight months. 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 - Smt Rani @ Pratibha 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 his 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 :- 26.5.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad