Single-judge Criminal Court rejected bail for a female accused charged with murder. The court found no grounds to grant relief due to the serious nature of the offense and evidence recovered, while directing expedited trial proceedings.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 725 of 2017
Applicant :- Parveen Begam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Dubey,Girish Singh,Praveen Mishra,Santosh Dwivedi,Satyendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Girish Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Parveen Begam with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2016 under Sections 302, 504/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Bekanganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution case, for the incident dated 21.06.2016 at 20:00 p.m., the F.I.R. has been lodged on the same day by the complainant-Mohd. Idrish, who is the brother of the deceased, Farid against four accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the complainant along with his brother, Farid (deceased) was returning from the market, after purchasing necessary things and when they reached near the house of Faheem Pahelwan, Pappu Chaudhary along with other accused persons, namely, Waseem, Monu and Parveen Begam (the present applicant), who is wife of co-accused-Pappu Chaudhary surrounded Farid by hurling abuses to him and Wasim, Monu and Pappu Chaudhary fired with their respective Tamanchas whereby Farid received fire arm injuries over his body and fell down on the ground, being drenched with blood and, thereafter, the applicant assaulted the deceased with a Chapar several times whereby Farid received injuries of Chapar on his head. The alleged incident was seen by the complainant, Mohd. Idrish and several villagers. When they made noise then the aforesaid accused persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the deceased, Farid was brought to Ursala Hospital with the help of villagers where the doctors declared him dead. As per the Postmortem Report of the deceased, the ante mortem injuries i.e. one multiple incised wound, two incised wounds, three abraded contusions, one fire arm wound of entry and one
fire arm wound of exit were found on the body of the deceased and cause of death was opined to be Haemorrhage and Shock, due to ante mortem injuries. It is next submitted that in the statement of the complainant, the version of F.I.R. has been reiterated.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier, an F.I.R. was lodged on 13.06.2016 by the husband of the applicant, Pappu Chaudhari against the deceased with Case Crime No. 93 of 2016, under Section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., due to this enmity, the applicant along with his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the co-accused-Wasim, who has been assigned the role of causing injury by fire arm, has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14121 of 2018. The applicant is lady and languishing in jail since 22.06.2016. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused applicant along with the other accused persons brutally committed the murder of the deceased, Farid by firing on him with Tamanchas and by assaulting on him with a Chapar. It is next stated that the applicant-Parveen Begam is named in the F.I.R. and her involvement was found in the incident. As per the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the same version of F.I.R. has been reiterated and specific role has been assigned to the applicant for assaulting the deceased by Chapar due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and later, the doctors declared him dead. As per the Postmortem Report of the deceased, the ante mortem injuries i.e. one multiple incised wound, two incised wounds, three abraded contusions, one fire arm wound of entry and one fire arm wound of exit were found by the doctor on the body of the deceased and cause of death was opined by the doctor to be Haemorrhage and Shock, due to ante mortem injuries. It is next submitted that as per the recovery memo, on 23.06.2016, the applicant was arrested and one Chapar, which is used in the alleged incident, has been recovered from her possession. Thus, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant and the offence committed by the applicant is of serious nature, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant, thus the bail applicant is stands rejected at this stage.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 , if there is no legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 6.5.2019 JK Yadav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a trial for murder involving a Tamacha and Chaapra assault.
Whether the recovery of a weapon from the applicant's possession precludes the grant of bail.
Whether the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings under the relevant Apex Court precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶14
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
Parveen Begam
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
