Allahabad High Court

SMT AARTIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and consequently granted bail.

Summary

Smt Aarti applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 83 of 2025) alleging she was falsely implicated in the death of a person who allegedly died by electrocution. The applicant argued that the FIR was filed twelve days after the incident, no post‑mortem was conducted, and the only incriminating evidence was a CDR that placed her and a co‑accused near the deceased, which does not prove presence at the crime scene. A statement recorded from the deceased’s son after a sixteen‑day delay, claiming Aarti smothered the victim, was contended to be tutored and unreliable. The State opposed bail, relying on that statement. The court, noting the delay in FIR, absence of post‑mortem, and the questionable reliability of the son’s statement, found a prima facie case for bail and ordered her release on bond with sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of post‑mortem report preclude granting bail.
Whether the statement of the deceased’s son recorded after a significant delay is reliable for bail considerations.
Whether CDR evidence alone suffices to justify continued detention.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the relevant statutes.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 183, 3(5)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 103

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
post‑mortem not conducted
call data record
statement of witness
prima facie case
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35766 of 2025

Smt Aarti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Madhukar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivang Shukla, Shubhang Shukla

Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.91 out of 150)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant
as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
3(5) BNS, Police Station Koshikalan, District Mathura, during the pendency
of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She
has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about twelve
days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No postmortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The deceased
got electrocuted, as such, was cremated.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has
simply been made an accused on the basis of CDR, whereby presence of
applicant and co-accused Pushpendra @ Pawan alongwith the deceased
person was found within the area of one and the same tower. The said CDR
does not indicate that applicant was present at the place of occurrence.

6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is a
statement of son of the deceased person Jai recorded U/s 183 BNSS,
whereby he has stated that the applicant had mounted the deceased on his
BAIL No. 35766 of 2025
2

chest and had smothered him, thereby co-accused person Pushpendra @
Pawan electrocuted him. It is further stated that it is not possible to
electrocute a person while other person mounted him on his body, as such,
the said statement cannot be relied upon recorded by the Magistrate
concerned on 3.2.2025 i.e. after a delay of about 16 days from the incident as
an afterthought.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that the said
statement is tutored one. As such, the applicant is entitled to bail. The
applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 1.2.2025.
She is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail,
she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the statement of
son of the deceased person categorically implicates the applicant to be the
main accused person, as such, she is not entitled to bail.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR and there being no postmortem
examination report and even the statement of son of the deceased person
having been recorded after a delay of 16 days from the incident, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application
is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Smt Aarti, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that she shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

11. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…