Allahabad High Court
SMT SHAHNAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered bail application No. 34422 of 2026 filed by Smt Shahnaz, who was named in an FIR for the murder of a man who allegedly owed her Rs 5,000. The FIR alleged that she and three co‑accused intercepted the deceased, inflicted knife injuries and further assaulted him with wooden sticks, but no eye‑witness testimony was recorded. Counsel for the applicant argued that the accusation was based solely on a financial dispute and that there was no prima facie evidence linking her to the crime. The Assistant Government Advocate did not dispute these factual submissions. Noting the absence of eye‑witness, the applicant’s clean criminal record, her gender, and the fact that she had been in custody for more than five months, the court held that she was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, and granted the bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is named in the FIR but there is no eye‑witness evidence.
- Whether the alleged financial dispute and lack of substantive evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the accused’s lack of prior criminal record and gender are relevant factors for bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed are appropriate under the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- no eye‑witness
- first‑time offender
- gender considerations
- pre‑trial detention
- financial dispute
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34422 of 2026
Smt Shahnaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Mishra, Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.342 of 2026,
under Sections 103(1), 126(2) and 3(5) BNS, Police Station Quarsi,
District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is
named in the FIR along with three others but there is no eye witness
account.
4. He further argued that actually deceased had taken Rs.5000/- from the
applicant side and, therefore, informant disclosed the name of the
applicant and other accused in the FIR without any evidence merely on
the basis of suspicion.
5. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record
which prima facie could connect the applicant with the instant crime.
6. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 18.4.2026 i.e., for the
last more than five months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicant.
BAIL No. 34422 of 2026
2
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
9. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with three others and
according to the FIR she along with others intercepted the deceaed on the
way on the date of incident and thereafter co-accused Azim caused knife
injuries to him and thereafter applicant and others made assault through
wooden sticks due to which he sustained injuries and died but it reflects
that there is no eye witness account.
10. Considering the pending dispute between both the sides with regard to
Rs. Five Thousand, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant that only due to this reason without any cogent evidence
applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with others,
cannot be ruled out at this stage.
11. Further, even applicant is lady and she is not having any other
criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 18.4.2026,
i.e., fore the last more than five moths.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Smt. Shahnaz, be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless her personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
BAIL No. 34422 of 2026
3
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 28, 2026
SKM
Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…