Allahabad High Court

PANMATIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

Bail is appropriate because the applicant is a woman, no specific role has been assigned to her in the assault, and she is not required for further custodial interrogation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Panmati, a female accused in a case involving alleged assault on the victim Kanhaiya and his mother. The applicant claimed false implication and argued that the FIR did not specifically assign her a role, while the State highlighted her alleged active participation and a prior criminal case. The court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 180 did not specifically implicate her, and that her earlier case was a cross‑complaint, with the maximum punishment not exceeding seven years. Considering that a charge sheet had been filed, she was no longer needed for custodial interrogation, and taking into account her gender and lack of a specific role, the court deemed bail appropriate. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions and surety requirements.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the female accused given the allegations of assault and her prior criminal history.
Whether the lack of a specific role assigned to the applicant in the FIR and charge sheet justifies bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 125, 180, 191(2), 351(3), 352, 74

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
assault
gender
false implication
charge sheet
custodial interrogation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15409 of 2026

Panmati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 40 of 2026, under Sections 109(1),
191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station- Brijmanganj,
District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of the trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a lady and has
been shown to have assaulted the injured alongwith her other family
members including her son, her husband and the other accused. The First
Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against six named accused
persons. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the
applicant is a lady and her case is distinguishable from that of the co-
accused. The injured has not specified the role of causing head injuries to
the applicant.
4. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended
that the applicant has been given the active role of assault by the injured
in his statement under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. The applicant has not
only assaulted the injured, Kanhaiya, but has also assaulted his mother,
who had come to save the injured. The injured has received grievous life
threatening injuries on his head. The applicant also has a criminal history
of one other case, being Case Crime No.13 of 2026 under Sections 74,
115(2) and 125 of the B.N.S., P.S. Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj,
which has not been explained.
BAIL No. 15409 of 2026
2

5. Rejoining the issue, the learned counsel for the applicant contends that
the criminal history that has been shown against the applicant, is a case
which was registered against the applicant as a cross case of Case Crime
No.14 of 2026, which has been lodged by the applicant against the
informant and others. The maximum punishment prescribed for the said
offences is not more than seven years.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
7. The applicant is a lady. General role of assault using a 'punch' and iron
rods have been made against the accused, named in the FIR. The
statement of the injured has also not assigned any specific role to the
applicant. The criminal history of the applicant stands explained. The
applicant is in jail since 19.02.2026.
8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, taking into
account the fact that the applicant is a woman, no specific role has been
assigned to her, a charge sheet has been filed against her and she is no
longer wanted for any custodial interrogation, I deem it appropriate to
grant bail to the applicant.
9. Let the applicant - Panmati, 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, subject to
the following conditions:
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses
and co-operate in the trial.
iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial Court, unless her personal appearance is exempted by the Court
concerned.
10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Court
below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.
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.
BAIL No. 15409 of 2026
3

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.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kushal

Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…