HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18155 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 at the instance of Smt. Rajwati w/o Jasvant Singh has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 109 B.N.S., P.S. Dilori, District- Moradabad during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 21.04.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged by the first informant nominating the husband of the applicant with the allegation that on 02.02.2025 at about 08:00pm, the son of the informant namely Rohit Kumar @ Shivam was called by the husband of the applicant to his house and when he reached the house Jaswant assaulted him with iron rod on his head. On hearing the commotion, the neighbours Yasin s/o Kallam and his other son Saurabh reached on the spot to save Rohit, Jaswant assaulted his daughter Prachi to make out a false case. Rohit is stated to have succumbed to the injuries caused by Jaswant. It has been argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and her name has surfaced after 8 days of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Tripathi, Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Madan Singh Smt. Rajwati .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the registration of the FIR from the statement of the alleged eye witness Saurabh Kumar. The informant in his statement has not named the applicant and has levelled allegations on Jaswant to have caused head injuries to the deceased by Iron rod. The witness Yasin has also not levelled allegations against the applicant. The weapon of assault i.e. the iron rod has been recovered from the pointing out of the nominated accused Jaswant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of her fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for the first informant as well as AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the other witnesses Saurabh and Prachi have assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased to the applicant by danda. Prachi (daughter of the applicant) in her statement has also alleged that her mother (the applicant) tried to strangulate her while going to the hospital. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the deceased sustained 14 injuries on his body (head, forehead, eyes, left hand, toe and many other parts) which indicates that both, the applicant and her husband have assaulted the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries inflicted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of injured Prachi who is an eye witness of the incident nominating the applicant and co-accused, Jaswant for causing injuries to her and the deceased, statement of eye witness Yassin, multiple injuries received on the person of deceased, medical report of injured Prachi, heniousness of offence, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. August 25, 2025 Anjali BAIL No. 18155 of 2025 2 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad