HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23087 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, at the instance of the applicant Chandani has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 124 of 2024 and Sessions Trial No. 2168 of 2024, under Section 103(1), 123 of B.N.S., Police Station Heempur Deepa, District Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, vide order dated 19.03.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024. Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes merely on the basis of suspicion. The applicant is a 60 years old lady and has no motive whatsoever to commit the crime and does not stand to benefit from the alleged crime. Learned counsel next submits that the FIR dated 15.08.2024 giving rise to the case crime number in question was lodged nominating three persons including the applicant with the allegation that the son of the informant namely Farman (co-accused) was married to one Dishana daughter of Haseemuddin and from the wedlock two daughters namely Aafiya aged about 8 years and Hadiya aged about 6 years were born. The marriage was subsequently dissolved and Farman entered into Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chandni .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) second marriage with one Nazreen D/o Ashfaruddin and the applicant. Dishana the first wife used to reside at her parental home. The FIR alleged that on 14.08.2024 at about 6:00 PM Nazreen, Farman and the applicant are alleged to have poisoned the two daughters. It is submitted that the information received by the concerned Police Station as recorded in G.D. No. 86 reveals that the step mother Nazreen (co-accused) is alleged to have poisoned the two girls. The inquest report also reveals that the cause of death is on account of poisoning. The post-mortem of the deceased daughters reveals that no ante-mortem injuries were seen over the bodies and cause of death could not be ascertained, hence Viscera was preserved for analysis for FSL. The FSL reports which are on record as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application reveals the presence of Aluminium Phosphide poison was found in the stomach, intestine, liver, kidney, spleen of the deceased but not found in the salt mixture collected. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has supported the FIR version. It is also argued that the applicant is being implicated merely on the basis of the CCTV Footage which shows Farman and Nazreen coming out of the house of the applicant with the deceased girls on their shoulders and rushing to the hospital. The said footage cannot be used to implicate the applicant for the offence of poisoning the deceased girls. It is also argued that the first informant has not come with clean hands inasmuch as he has not disclosed that his son Farman (co-accused) had three children from the first wife and all used to live with him establishing the falsity of the FIR version. It is also argued that charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on 27.11.2024 and charges have already been framed on 02.01.2025 but none of the witnesses which are 31 in number have been examined so far. It is also argued that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not violate the liberty of bail. Hence bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, BAIL No. 23087 of 2025 2 severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Chandni, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. August 1, 2025 pks BAIL No. 23087 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad