Smt. Rukhsana vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 8369 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rukhsana vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147638
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22105 of 2025
 
Court No. - 65
 
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.108 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the site plan shows the place of occurrence to be the house of the applicant, as such, she is not entitled for bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

10. 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.

August 25, 2025

(Ravi Kant)