HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25032 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashank Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Vakalatnama of Sri Rajiv Sisodia is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it. 4. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Shivani @ Joolie, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Section 103(1) BNS, registered at P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 05.04.2025 by Mukul @ Piyush Kumar against the applicant and one unknown person alleging therein that his brother Deepak Kumar was a technician in the railways. Since last one month he was living with his wife along with six months old child in Najibabad. On 04.4.2025 at about 01:00 pm Shivani called him on phone and stated that his brother has fallen while sitting and it appears that he has suffered cardiac arrest and then he immediately informed the office and reached there and when he was on the way called his younger brother along with family members. After reaching there his brother was taken to the hospital where it was found that postmortem examination was conducted in which the cause of death was not due to cardiac arrest but was due to throttling. Shivani gave him a wrong information and has a suspicion on her for death of his brother. Report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiv Sisodia Shivani Alias Joolie .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the wife of the deceased Deepak Kumar. It is submitted that the deceased suffered cardiac arrest and had fallen from chair and died. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased and the applicant were having any matrimonial discord and were not living happily. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 BNSS. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 07.04.2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the information given by the applicant to the family members of the deceased was a false information inasmuch the doctor found an abraded contusion all around the neck of the deceased, there were two abrasions on the left and right feet of the deceased which were antemortem and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling which is not the cause of cardiac arrest. It is submitted that the fact that the deceased was living in the house along with the applicant with his six months old child is not disputed. It is submitted that the applicant provided false information to the family members and the cause of death as per postmortem examination was different from the information given by the applicant. It is submitted that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the wife of the deceased. The applicant informed the family members of the deceased that the deceased fell down from chair and suffered cardiac arrest and he appears to be dead. The postmortem examination report finds an abraded contusion on the neck of the deceased along with two abrasions and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of throttling which rules out the death by cardiac arrest. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 24, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 25032 of 2025 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad