Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 225 (ALL)

Priyanka Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 09.10.2024 in Case Crime No.373 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1) , 61 (2) (ka) , 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S), Police Station-Sandana, District-Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards impugned first information report which was lodged on 07.10.2024 at about 02.45 PM for the alleged incident occurred on 04/05.10.2024 PM without explaining the delay in lodging the same. In the impugned first information report, no allegation of any nature whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant, who is the wife of the deceased. The informant of the present case is the father of the deceased. The allegation has been levelled against four accused, namely, Ankit Yaav, Manoj Pasi, Manoj and Siddhe. The deceased sustained five injuries and the cause of death is coma on account of ante-mortem head injury. There is no eye-witness account or last seen evidence in the present case. During the course of investigation, the prosecution developed story that present applicant is having illicit relation with co-accused Ankit Yadav therefore, she might be instrumental to eliminate her husband. The police has recorded the confessional statement of Ankit Yadav and the present applicant in the custody, which has no value in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that present applicant was having cordial relation with her husband though he was a heavy drunker and used to live separately from her. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-'4' which is a statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Act therein he has categorically stated that his daughter-in-law was residing with him and his family, whereas his son (since deceased) was residing at ancestral house situated at another village Saholi where his daughter-in-law/present applicant used to go offtenly. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-'4' which is a statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Act therein he has categorically stated that his daughter-in-law was residing with him and his family, whereas his son (since deceased) was residing at ancestral house situated at another village Saholi where his daughter-in-law/present applicant used to go offtenly. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that as per the prosecution material in the shape of CDR of the Cell Phone of the present applicant, which indicates that on the fateful day she called Ankit Yadav couples of times. On the said allegation, learned counsel for applicant submitted that since her husband was missing and he was drunkered, she came to know about his death therefore she had called Ankit Yadav couples of time and thereafter other persons who are friends of her husband only to know the whereabouts/location of her husband. There is no earlier complaint of her husband (since deceased) or his family members to the effect that she was having any illicit relation with co-accused Ankit Yadav, thus it is a concocted story. Even no specific allegation to that effect has been levelled against her, only suspicion has been expressed against her and on the basis of suspicion she has been arrested and her confessional statement has been recorded in the police custody. She is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge sheet has been filed. The present applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. (480 of BNSS). She is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. She undertakes that if she is granted bail, she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for applicant. 7. She undertakes that if she is granted bail, she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for applicant. 7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that present applicant is not named in the first information report; the present applicant was residing with the informant and his family members at his house; only suspicion has been expressed that since co- accused Ankit Yadav used to make phone calls to the present applicant, she might be instrumental to eliminate her husband; present applicant being lady is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. (480 of BNSS); there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; undertaking of the applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant- Priyanka Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (vi) Before parting with, it is made clear that the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and has been given benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. (480 BNSS) therefore, other co-accused may not claim parity with the present applicant.