The High Court dismissed the State's opposition and allowed a bail application for Chameli, accused under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC for alleged strangulation. The court imposed conditions ensuring her presence and non-interference with witnesses.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11975 of 2022
Applicant :- Chameli Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Certified copy of the F.I.R. is provided by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.
Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned counsel representing the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Chameli for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.555 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she is not associated with any crime as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the first information report of the incident has been lodged by Ramveer (husband of the deceased) on 06.08.2021 at about 01:09 hours at Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj stating therein that on 24.07.2021, he had brought his wife for the purpose of treatment to the house of the exorcist on the persuasion of his daughter Chameli (applicant) on 25.07.2021, the applicant and her husband Mansaram asked the deceased to relax on the roof of their house and permit the exorcist Radhey to perform rituals. However, in the morning, he found his wife dead and an electric wire was found around her neck. He is having an apprehension that the deceased has been done to death by Radhey. He might have attempted to rape her and on resistance being given by the deceased, he has strangulated her. In the postmortem report of the deceased, a ligature mark was found around her neck along with a burn mark present over anterior neck and as per the opinion of the doctor, death of the deceased had occurred due to strangulation as a result of ante mortem injuries.
Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that if the whole prosecution case is believed on it face, it may surface that the instant applicant, who is daughter of the exorcist Radhey, in good faith has advised the informant to get her wife treated by her father, who was an exorcist and apart from that no overact of the applicant has been alleged either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons after due deliberations as promptly after the death of the deceased an information was given by the informant to the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, wherein no allegation of any kind pertaining to the attempt of rape etc. has been levelled against the father of the applicant or against the applicant and it was after sometime the informant has twisted the facts in order to aggravate the gravity of the act of the father of the applicant. It is next submitted that along with the informant and his wife, five persons namely Fateh Candra, Bahadur, Ganga Prasad, Gokaran and Atma Ram are stated to have accompanied the informant and the deceased and all these witnesses, whose statement have been recorded by the investigating officer, have only stated that as exorcist Radhey was performing rituals, the applicant and her husband has asked the informant and other persons to relax on the roof of their house and no allegation pertaining to attempt to rape the deceased by the exorcist Radhey has been levelled in their statement, which is after thought.
It is next submitted that applicant being lady is in jail in this case since 09.02.2021, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and the applicant is not carrying any criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the role of the instant applicant is only of persuading the informant and other persons, who had come to the house of her father namely Radhey for the purpose of treatment of the wife of the informant, to relax on the roof of her house as rituals may take sometime. In the morning dead body of the deceased has been found outside the house. The instant applicant has married to Mansaram, who is a resident of Hardoi and therefore, it has been vehemently
submitted on behalf of the applicant that as a matter of curtsy, the daughter of exorcist Radhey had accompanied the informant and the deceased and she, as per the own case of the prosecution, would not be having any motive and therefore, her complicity with the aid of Section 120-B I.P.C. in the crime is unwarranted. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 09.02.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .
Let the accused/applicant- Chameli involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022 Anupam S/-
Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.26 17:53:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out a case for bail in a trial for murder and conspiracy.
Whether conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure presence for trial.
Chameli
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
