Allahabad High Court
JADAWATI VISHVAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of corroborative evidence and given that the medical report does not support the prosecution, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jadawati Vishvakarma, who was alleged to have participated in the assault leading to the death of an informant’s wife. The FIR named her among six accused, but the post‑mortem report indicated injuries that were old and the cause of death was cardio‑pulmonary arrest, with no forensic link to the alleged assault. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence and that the medical findings did not support the prosecution’s case. It also observed that a co‑accused, Nirmala Vishvakarma, had already been granted bail, and that the applicant, a first‑time female offender, had been in custody for over a month. Weighing the lack of risk of tampering, flight, or witness intimidation, the court decided to grant bail subject to standard conditions. The applicant was ordered to be released on personal bond with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution lacks corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing.
- Whether parity with a co‑accused already released on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 105
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 190, 191(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- medical evidence
- false implication
- gender considerations
- co‑accused parity
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15088 of 2026
Jadawati Vishvakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Sri Ram Dulare Chauhan and Ms. Nainshi Srivastava, Advocates have
filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Ms. Nainshi Srivastav, counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-
opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2026, under Sections 190,
191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna,
District- Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the
applicant along with five named accused is alleged to have assaulted the
wife of the informant. The wife of the informant died on 07.03.2026. As per
the post-mortem report, the deceased sustained three injuries i.e. (1)
Contusion 19 cm x 6 cm, color bluish and vertically placed over left side
abdomen, about 2 to 3 days old, (2) Contusion 17 cm x 7 cm, color bluish
and vertically placed over front of abdomen, around the umblicus, about 2 to
3 days old, and (3) Contusion 19 cm x 9 cm, color bluish and vertically
placed over right side abdomen, about 2 to 3 days old. In the opinion of the
doctor, the cause of death is due to cardio pulmonary arrest and viscera was
preserved and sent for forensic examination. Viscera report is not part of the
case diary. It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. The deceased died a natural death, not on account of the
BAIL No. 15088 of 2026
2
injuries. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. It is next contended that co-accused Nirmala Vishvakarma has been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.13135 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is a lady
and is in jail since 09.03.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case,
she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the
record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.
At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The co-accused Nirmala Vishvakarma has been granted bail by this Court.
Further, the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. She has
remained confined for more than one and half month 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant Jadawati Vishvakarma, involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
the conditions that she:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
May 5, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…