Kusum vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6189 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kusum vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37948
 

 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4544 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Kusum
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Deshraj Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arbaz Danish,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri Deshraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.528 of 2024 under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was enlarged on bail in the present case crime number vide order dated 9.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.708 of 2025 and she has not misused said opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated in trial. Later on, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the added Section of 103(1) B.N.S. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. In the judgments of Supreme Court passed in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C. Although, the instant case is of regular bail but it can be considered to be on better footing.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Kusum, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 18.3.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)