High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant charged with murder under Sections 302 IPC, where evidence relied was a confessional statement and motive lacked corroboration.
Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions to ensure presence in court and non-tampering of evidence.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2620 of 2022
Applicant :- Uramila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar,Pratikdhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Uramila Devi , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 174 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gaura Badshahpur, District Jaunpur.
The first information report of the present case was lodged by Uramila Devi (the present applicant) on 25.09.2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. against an unknown person alleging therein that on 15.09.2021 her daughter aged about 17 years was found dead in a pond near the house. Her daughter was suspected dead due to drowning and the same was communicated to the police. Later on after postmortem examination it was discovered that she has died due to smothering. The first information report is thus lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that subsequently the police took up the investigation and made the first informant as one of the accused in the matter on 14.11.2021. It is argued that the dead body of the deceased was found in the pond and the postmortem examination was conducted on 15.09.2020 in which the doctor had found a contusion on the body and there was bleeding from nose. The cause of death was opined asphyxia as a result of antemortem smothering. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is only on the basis of suspicion. The evidence against the applicant as is being relied by the prosecution is the confessional statement of the applicant to the police. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either on the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that although in the alleged confessional statement of the applicant, the police has recorded the motive being for the son of the applicant namely Ashish who is an accused in a matter being Case Crime No. 141 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Gaura Badshahpur, District Jaunpur and the deceased Mamta Yadav was a witness against her brother Ashish as such the applicant had a motive to eliminate her so that she would not depose against Ashish who is the brother of the deceased and son of the applicant.
Learned counsel has placed the charge-sheet of the said case which is annexed
as Annexure-10 to the affidavit and has argued while placing the list of witnesses relied by prosecution therein that the deceased Mamta Yadav was not a witness in the said matter and as such there was no occasion for her to depose against her brother. It is argued that the police just in order to show good work has implicated the applicant in the present case. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no witness to the murder. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 14.11.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has given her confessional statement to the police on the basis of which she has been made as an accused.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant is on the basis of her confessional statement to the police only. Even the motive as narrated in the said confessional statement for committing offence does not find corroboration from the records.
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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Uramila Devi , 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant 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 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 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 applicant.
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 applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 9.2.2022 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.11 17:00:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the applicant charged with murder based solely on a confessional statement.
Whether the motive articulated in the confession is corroborated by the available record.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Uramila Devi
Samit Gopal
Abhishek Singh Rathor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
