Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 230 (ALL)

Yashwanti Alias Aswanti Devi v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.366 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 103(1) BNS, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.10.2024 against the applicant and her son, Raj Nishad under Sections 115(2), 352, 351 (3) and 110 BNS and according to the FIR, on 22.10.2024 at about 7.00 PM in the evening without any reason applicant and her son started abusing the son of the informant and when he resisted then they caused injuries to him through sharp edged weapon (sabbal) due to which he sustained injuries and he has been admitted to the Hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 110 BNS and after the death of the injured, i.e., the son of the informant case has been converted under Section 103 (1) BNS. 5. She further submits that applicant is a lady and on the basis of false and frivolous allegation, she has been made accused in the present matter along with her son. 6. She further submits that from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it could not be reflected that she was an eye witness. 7. She next submits that however, during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of three eye witnesses and they, however, reiterated the version of the FIR but even they did not attribute any specific role to the applicant. It is next submitted that they did not even assigned any specific weapon to any of the accused including the applicant and this fact suggests that actually they also did not witness the real incident. 8. She further submits that from the post mortem report it reflects that deceased sustained two ante mortem injuries. It is next submitted that they did not even assigned any specific weapon to any of the accused including the applicant and this fact suggests that actually they also did not witness the real incident. 8. She further submits that from the post mortem report it reflects that deceased sustained two ante mortem injuries. One on his parietal region and another on his stomach and both these injuries can be caused by even a single person and it appears that only being mother of the accused Raj Nishad, applicant has also been made accused in the present matter. 9. She further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 26.10.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that incident has been witnessed by three eye witnesses and they specifically stated that applicant and her son caused injuries to the deceased and post mortem report also shows that deceased sustained two ante mortem injuries and from perusal of injury no.1 it reflects that there are as many as 22 stitches on his parietal region and, therefore applicant should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. As per the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation applicant and her son caused injuries to the deceased due to which he died during his treatment but it could not be reflected that informant was the eye witness. 13. However, record also suggests that as per prosecution there are three eye-witnesses of the incident and they in their statements recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR but from their statements it reflects that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant, who is a lady and they did not even attribute any specific weapon to any of the accused including the applicant. 14. Further, from the record however it also reflects that on the pointing out of applicant one wooden stick and a brick was recovered but merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage it cannot be said that applicant, who is a lady, was also involved in the present crime. 15. 14. Further, from the record however it also reflects that on the pointing out of applicant one wooden stick and a brick was recovered but merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage it cannot be said that applicant, who is a lady, was also involved in the present crime. 15. Further, law is settled that bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes and bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception. Further, unless proven guilty an accused deemed to be innocent. 16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 26.10.2024. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Yashwanti @ Aswanti Devi 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 hers 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 her 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. 20. 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. 21. 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.