Vijeta vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ramkumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 440 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the prosecution story, on 23.10.2025 at 9:40 p.m., near Harsh Hotel, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, the named accused Vishal assaulted the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, repeatedly with a knife, which resulted in his death. The FIR was lodged on 24.10.2025 at 5:24 a.m., and the statement of the first informant also narrated the same version and made specific allegation against the co-accused Vishal; however, the name of the applicant was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement of the first informant. Thereafter, the statement of another eye-witness, Shashi Kumar Yadav, was recorded on 24.10.2025, wherein he also made specific allegation that the named accused Vishal openly assaulted the deceased repeatedly and thereafter ran away along with a bloodstained knife. Subsequently, the statement of another witness, Abhishek, was recorded on 25.10.2025, wherein he stated that the present applicant had taken a loan from the deceased and, when she failed to return the same, the deceased misbehaved with her openly in front of her relatives; therefore, the son of the applicant, Sahil, openly threatened to take revenge through the named accused Vishal. It was further stated that on the date of the incident, Vishal repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a knife and, when the deceased fell down, he attacked him with a ?chapad?, and thereafter ran away from the place of occurrence. It was also stated by Abhishek that at the time of the aforesaid incident, the son of the applicant was making a video of the incident on his mobile phone and the applicant was also present at the spot.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor in the statement of the first informant nor in the statement of eye-witness Shashi Kumar Yadav, and her name was subsequently roped in only on the basis of the statement of Abhishek by assigning the role of conspiracy as well as presence at the spot. It is further submitted that, on the pointing out of the named accused, a bloodstained knife was also recovered; however, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and, being a lady, she is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 480 B.N.S.S. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and she is languishing in jail since 28.10.2025. In case she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased was murdered by the named accused Vishal in a crowded place at Civil Lines, Prayagraj, and while the named accused Vishal was assaulting the deceased, the present applicant was also present near the spot and her son was making videography of the aforesaid incident, and she was involved in the conspiracy; therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the first informant and further submitted that, on receiving the information, the police reached on the spot and found that, apart from other persons, the present applicant was also present near the place of incident.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the fact that the applicant is a lady, and also keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused, and further taking into account the fact that a specific allegation of assaulting and committing the murder of the deceased has been assigned to the named accused Vishal, and that a bloodstained knife has also been recovered from the said named accused Vishal, as well as considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, as well as the guidelines of this Court in Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, regarding grant of bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant- Vijeta, involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by her.

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

9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Jail Superintendent, Prayagraj via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

May 6, 2026

SA