Allahabad High Court
Smt. Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Rani vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76539 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4855 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Rani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rafeek Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State has produced before the Court the photocopy of the viscera report dated 09.05.2025 a perusal of which would go to show that the viscera of the deceased Kranti was found to contain aluminium phosphide poison, the same is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Hitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
4. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Smt. Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Rani, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 230 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Garautha, District Jhansi.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:
(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(ii) The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Kranti Devi.
(iii) The marriage of the deceased Kranti Devi was solemnized with Shailendra son of the applicant on 24.04.2018.
(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant.
(v) Postmortem examination report shows that the cause of death could not be ascertained as such the viscera was preserved after which examination the viscera, aluminium phosphide poison was found in it. There is no other injury found on the body of the deceased.
(vi) Shailendra the husband of the deceased is in jail.
(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.12.2024.
(viii) The FIR has been lodged after 10 days of the alleged incident which is alleged to have taken place on 08.11.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 18.11.2024.
(ix) The applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 BNSS.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death could not be ascertained as such the viscera was preserved after which examination the viscera, aluminium phosphide poison was found in it. Shailendra the husband of the deceased is in jail.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant Smt. Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Rani, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.
(v) 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 351 BNSS, 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/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)