Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3826 (ALL)

Asha Sharma v. State of U. P.

2009-12-18

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT: Ravindra Singh, J. Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Smt. Asha Sharma with a prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime No. 513 of 2009 under sections 394, 302, 120-B IPC, P.S. Ghandi Park, District Aligarh. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Pramod Kumar on 16.07.2009 at 6.05 P.M. in respect of incident which had occurred on 16.07.2009 at about 5.00 P.M. The FIR has been lodged against unknown miscreants. It is alleged that first informant got an information that his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Smt. Munni Devi wife of Mahesh Chandra and her three daughters namely Km. Poonam, Km. Mamta and Km. Preeti are not giving any response from their house then he tried to contact through mobile phone but the same was not responded, then the first informant came to the house of the deceased and saw that the main gate was opened, on the first floor of the house, the dead bodies of Smt. Munni Devi, Km. Poonam, Km. Mamta, Km. Preeti were lying in the room. They were killed by way of strangulation. The goods of the house were found in a scattered condition. During investigation, the name of the applicant came into the light. It is alleged that she was having illicit relation with Mahesh Chandra, the husband of the deceased, she had chosen the time to commit the murder of the deceased persons when Mahesh Chandra along with his son had gone to England with regard to his business. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, the same has been rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 1.7.2009. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The present case is based on the circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence. The allegation that applicant was having illicit relation with Mahesh Chandra, the husband of the deceased Smt. Munni Devi is absolutely false and baseless. The allegation that applicant hired the criminals to commit the murder of the deceased in furtherance of conspiracy when Mahesh Chandra and his son Gaurav were in England is absolutely false and baseless. The allegation that applicant was having illicit relation with Mahesh Chandra, the husband of the deceased Smt. Munni Devi is absolutely false and baseless. The allegation that applicant hired the criminals to commit the murder of the deceased in furtherance of conspiracy when Mahesh Chandra and his son Gaurav were in England is absolutely false and baseless. No such credible evidence has been collected the I.O. in support of this allegation. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by the co-accused Madan and in extra judicial confessions of co-accused Manoj. It is alleged that one witness Satyendra Singh was passing through the house of the applicant, he saw and heard that applicant was talking with four persons and asking them to commit the murder of the deceased persons on the same day of the alleged incident. It is alleged that three R.D. Accounts were going on in which the money was deposited by Smt. Lata Chauhan who stated that the money was provided by Mahesh Chandra is also having no relevance. During investigation the witness Gaurav son of Mahesh Chanda has produced certain receipts regarding the purchase of colour T.V., Motorcycle, Idea mobile bills which were in house of the applicant were purchased by Mahesh Chandra. The applicant was called on the police station on 5.5.2009, its G.D. Entry has been made. There is no credible evidence collected by the I.O. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded in a belated stage and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent. She may be released on bail. 4. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that applicant has given the effect to the alleged incident in which four persons have been done to death. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained ante mortem injuries. The applicant was having illicit relation with Mahesh Chandra but the wife of the Mahesh Chandra was in hurdle in such relationship that is why the time was chosen by the applicant to liquidate the deceased persons when Mahesh Chandra and his son were in England. Sufficient material has been collected by I.O. showing that the deceased was having illicit relationship with Mahesh Chandra. The alleged offence is organised crime. Sufficient material has been collected by I.O. showing that the deceased was having illicit relationship with Mahesh Chandra. The alleged offence is organised crime. In such a case, if any material is available against any person connecting with the commission of the alleged offence, may not be released on bail. 5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and from the perusal of the record, it appears that it is a case in which wife of the Mahesh Chandra Namely Smt. Munni Devi and his three minor daughters have been killed at their house. At that time Mahesh Chandra and his son had gone to England. The allegation against the applicant is that he was having illicit relationship with Mahesh Chandra for which the deceased Munni Devi was hurdle, to remove the same, she hatched the conspiracy and liquidated all the deceased persons. The gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.