Allahabad High Court

SARASWATI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence and with no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saraswati Devi, who was implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 119 of 2025) under Section 105 of the B.N.S. and Section 15(2)(B) of the Indian Medical Council Act. The applicant argued that she was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and that her only involvement was advising the deceased’s father‑in‑law to seek treatment, with no corroborative evidence linking her to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court found that the disclosure of the applicant’s name came ten days after the incident, there was no evidence of her participation, she had no criminal record, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered her release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence, not pressurize witnesses, and appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the absence of corroborative evidence linking her to the offence.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released on bail.
Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies granting bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 105
Indian Medical Council Act — s. 15(2)(B)

Subjects

bail
Indian Medical Council Act
false implication
lack of evidence
presumption of innocence
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9343 of 2026

Saraswati Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
and section 15(2)(B) of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station-
Sahatwar, District- Ballia during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant was disclosed by father-in-law of the deceased
after ten days of the alleged incident. The only role assigned to the applicant
is of advising the father-in-law of the deceased to avail treatment at Adarsh
Sewa Sadan, Sahatwar, Bareilly. The first information report has been
lodged after due inquiry by the Chief Medical Officer. The applicant has no
concern with the alleged hospital. The operation and treatment was provided
by the named co-accused. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since
25.1.2026 having no criminal history. In case she is enlarged on bail, she
will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
BAIL No. 9343 of 2026
2

Court prima facie finds that the name of the applicant was disclosed by
father-in-law of the deceased after ten days of the alleged incident. The only
role assigned to the applicant is of advising the father-in-law of the deceased
to avail treatment at Adarsh Sewa Sadan, Sahatwar, Bareilly. The first
information report has been lodged after due inquiry by the Chief Medical
Officer. The operation and treatment was provided by the named co-accused.
At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than one 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 intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Saraswati involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
March 19, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…