This court granted bail to two applicants accused of murder and abetment. The judge considered the facts, severity of punishment, and complicity before making an order.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each, subject to conditions of cooperation with trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48034 of 2018 Applicant :- Tapasya @ Tabassum Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Babu Sharma
AND
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48040 of 2018 Applicant :- Manglesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Babu Sharma
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48034 of 2018, are taken on record.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48040 of 2018 is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for applicant Tapasya @ Tabassum, Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for applicant Manglesh, Sri Ram Babu, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant Tapasya @ Tabassum contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that she was Muslim and was converted to Hinduism for making marriage with Yogesh, deceased and her marriage was solemnized with Yogesh on 28.6.2011 vide Annexure-13A; that after marriage deceased bequeathed all his property in favour of applicant through registered will deed dated 25.4.2016 Annexure-13; that applicant is first informant of case and has been falsely implicated as an accused upon application of her mother-in-law during investigation; that on 16.7.2018 at about 4:00 p.m. applicant's husband Yogesh left and she had talk with him at 8:00 p.m. when he told her that he will reach home within 2 hours but subsequently his phone went switched off and despite search she could not find him and on 18.7.2018 his dead body was recovered in canal near Chamunda temple; that there was some property dispute of applicant's husband with members of his family, (in view of Will Annexure-13 in favour of applicant) and on 16.7.2018 her husband was with his village relative nephew, Lala Fauji (Sanjeev Fauji) and after consuming liquor with him was under intoxication; that on 21.7.2018 an
application was moved by applicant's mother-in-law that she has suspicion over applicant and so she may be arrayed as first informant and thereafter statements of Smt. Baikunthi, the mother of deceased, Mangal Singh and Yogendra Singh, brothers of deceased and Vipin Dua and Manveer Singh of village were recorded, who all raised finger of doubt against applicant; that subsequently to it on 22.7.2018 confessional statement of applicant Tapasya @ Tabassum was recorded in police custody according to which she had developed intimacy with Sanjeev Fauji and since Yogesh deceased was an obstruction in their relationships, she decided to eliminate him and as per plan paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs to Sanjeev Fauji in presence of hired shooters Rajesh Fauji, Tarun and Chunna; that additional statement of brother of deceased was recorded on 25.8.2015 after period of more than one month of incident who stated by way of improvement narrated a false and concocted story that about one month ago on 24.7.2018 Chandravir Singh and Kishan Pal came to him and after taking him to separate room told him that on 16.7.2018 when they had gone to village Jinai were passing near Siddh Baba temple at canal and stayed for a while to make water, seen Yogesh sitting over a motorcycle and Chunna with his revolver and Tarun with his pistol fired at him upon which he fell down from motorcycle and Rajesh Fauji, Sanjeev Fauji and Manglesh after ascertaining that he has died thrown his body in canal; that subsequent to it after a period of another one month statements of Chandravir Singh and Kishan Pal were recorded that one fire was made by Chunna and two fires were made by Tarun on deceased; that entire story developed by prosecution by way of improvement is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant neither developed relationship with Sanjeev Fauji nor had any reason to cause death of her husband; that it is absolutely wrong to say that applicant hired shooters upon payment of any amount whatsoever; that conversation of applicant with Sanjeev Fauji, friend of her husband has no relevancy; that applicant has been falsely implicated with help of Section 120-B I.P.C. in order to deprive her from the property of deceased; that applicant has not been assigned with role of causing any fatal injury to deceased; that case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Tarun, Chunna, Rajesh Fauji and Sanjeev Fauji; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 22.7.2018.
Learned counsel for applicant Manglesh submitted that he has been falsely implicated and his name has surfaced for the first time in the statement of Sanjeev Fauji and thereafter in the statements of Chandravir Singh and Kishan Pal; that applicant
has not been assigned with role of causing fire arm injury to deceased and entire story has been developed after post-mortem of the body of deceased when three gun shot injuries were found on his person; that applicant had no motive and was not at all involved in the incident; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 23.7.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that conversion of applicant Tapasya @ Tabassum to Hinduism is only a paper transaction and actually she has not left Islam and the marriage with deceased was made by her in order to usurp his property; that according to her plan she obtained a registered will in her favour from deceased and thereafter eliminated him; that applicant could not dare to dispute her conversation on mobile with co-accused Sanjeev Fauji; that applicant Tapasya @ Tabassum did not provide her mobile as well as SIM card to police despite demand, in order to avoid CDR, rather destroyed the same; that role assigned to applicant is not less than that of murder and she is equally liable for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.; that applicant Manglesh actively participated in commission of murder of Yogesh; that applicants if released on bail, shall misuse the liberty of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants Tapasya @ Tabassum and Manglesh be released on bail in Case Crime No.407 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that they are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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 applicants to prison.
Order Date :- 11.1.2019 Kpy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants are fit candidates for bail in the present circumstances.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Tapasya @ Tabassum
Manglesh
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
