PRIYA @ PINKI @ BANTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12211 of 2025

Priya @ Pinki @ Banta
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Saksham Srivastava, Shashi Bhushan
                                 Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Rahul Kumar Sharma

Court No. - 75
                      HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Mayank      Yadav,     Advocate      holding    brief    of   Sri Saksham
Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for
the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Priya @ Pinki @
Banta, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hathras rejecting the Bail
Application No. 1607 of 2025 (Priya @ Pinki @ Banta Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238
BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandarau,
District Hathras and with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail
in the aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.09.2025 by Krishna @ Swami
against Smt. Somwati alleging therein that that he is a resident of Hathras
and his daughter Anabhya aged about 6 years was playing outside the
house with Kartik the son of his brother Vijay Pal on 03.09.2025 at about
10:00 pm from where she suddenly disappeared. She was searched till
01:00 pm and then her dead body was found wrapped in a gunny bag in a
well near his house. Her neck was found to be wrapped by a white colour
gamchha and tongue was protruding out. He has a suspicion that Somwati
has committed the incident. The postmortem examination of Km.
Anabhya @ Arabi was conducted on 04.09.2025 in which the doctor
found a single ligature mark which was noted as under:

"Ligature mark 21cm x 1.5cm continuous & horizontal present over neck
                                                       CRLA No. 12211 of 2025
                               2


which is 3cm below from right ear and 3cm below chin and 3cm below
from left ear. Base of grove brown in colour. Subcutaneous tissue
underneath ligature mark is ecchymosed."

     The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem
strangulation. The hyoid bone was found to be fractured.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is
not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the implication of the appellant
has surfaced in the matter during investigation. It is further submitted that
the investigation has concluded and a charge sheet dated 01.11.2025 has
been submitted against the appellant and a minor boy named 'K'. It is
submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature. There
is no eye witness to the murder. It is submitted that during investigation,
the Investigating Officer allegedly states to have collected two pieces of
broken bangles from the said well on 09.09.2025 on the pointing out of
Smt. Somwati the mother-in-law of the appellant and then collected two
other bangles from the house of the appellant allegedly of the same type
and thus a conclusion was drawn that the appellant was involved in the
matter. It is submitted further that the confessional statement of the
appellant is being used against him. It is submitted that subsequently the
supplementary statement of the first informant was recorded during
investigation in which he states that he saw the appellant carrying
something in a gunny bag which was the dead body of his daughter. It is
submitted that the same is an afterthought and just in order to falsely
implicate the appellant. It is submitted that links in the chain of
circumstances are conspicuously missing. The appellant has no criminal
history as stated in para 35 of the bail application in appeal and is in jail
since 06.09.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State
opposed the appeal and prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased is
a child aged about 6 years and the appellant had a motive to commit the
offence since she deceased had seen the appellant with a minor boy in a
compromising position and thus she was murdered. It is submitted that
even two pieces of broken bangles were recovered from well from where
the dead body was recovered which are identical to that of the bangles
used by the appellant which was given by her mother-in-law. It is
submitted that thus links in the chain of circumstances are complete.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the appellant is not named in the FIR. The
implication of the appellant has surfaced during investigation. There is no
eye witness to the murder. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted
and thus there are no chances of tampering of evidence or not cooperating
with the investigation. The appellant is a lady and she is entitled to the
benefit of Section 480 BNSS. The matter is of circumstantial in nature.
                                                        CRLA No. 12211 of 2025
                                3


Links in the of circumstances are missing.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that
the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the appellant- Priya @ Pinki @ Banta, be released on bail in the
aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-

i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner
whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 84
BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before
the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section
209 BNS/174-A I.P.C.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance
with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269
BNS/229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
                                                                                        CRLA No. 12211 of 2025
                                                                 4


                                    appellant to prison.

                                    11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

                                    12. The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by Special Judge
                                    (SC/ST) Act, Hathras is hereby set aside.


                                                                                           (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    May 15, 2026
                                    M. ARIF




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad