Sadhna vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State as well as Sri Surya Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law(Saas) of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.05.2025 and the inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day. The applicant was one of the inquest witness. The first information report came to be lodged on 15.05.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The deceased was married to the co-accused Anek Sharma (husband of the deceased) on 10.3.2017. As per the statement of the informant recorded under section 180 B.N.S.S. the only allegation against the applicant is that she had supported the co-accused. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. Reliance has also been placed upon the ration card of the applicant to contend that the applicant was living separately. She had no role in the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Anek Sharma. It is next contended that the co-accused Vivek Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12132 of 2026. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2025 having no criminal history. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. As per the ration card of the applicant, she was living separately on the date of the alleged incident. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Sadhna involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and,

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

v.k. updh.