Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2204 (ALL)

Anuradha v. State of U. P.

2011-09-20

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2011
Ravindra Singh, J.;- Heard Sri Aditya Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, leaned A.G.A.for the State of U.P. and Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This bail application has been filed by Smt. Anuradha with a prayer that she may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2011 under sections 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Didoli, District J.P.Nagar. 3. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Dharam Vir Singh on 3.4.2011 at 7.45 A.M.in respect of the incident allegedly occurred in the night of 2/3 4.2011. The FIR has been lodged against unknown miscreants. It is alleged that deceased Amit Kumar alias Bablu, son of the first informant had gone to his tube well on 2.4.2011 at 11.30 P.M. for sleeping, in the morning of 3.4.2011 the first informant went there and found the deceased dead but one quilt (lihaf) was found on his body. 4. According to post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained 3 ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound over forehead, injury no.2 was swelling over right eye, injury no. 3 was a penetrating wound over right side of the face, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage & shock as result of ante-mortem injuries, but during investigation, the statement of Smt. Rashmi, the sister in law of the deceased and real sister of the applicant was recorded, she stated that the applicant Anuradha was her own sister. In year 2008, the applicant had gone in the company of a boy and after 5 or 6 days, she came back, that is why in hurriedly, her marriage was also performed on the same day of the marriage of the witness Rashmi, she was married with her dewar, the applicant was very sharp minded lady, after marriage she continued her education, she was a student of B.A.II year, she was knowing the habits of the applicant, she was ill and two times abortion has taken place, she was having no issue, she had developed her illicit relationship with Sonu @ Harvinder , who used to visit her house. On 2.4.2011, she had seen the co-accused Sonu @ Harvinder in her house, he was in the company of another Sonu, both were on a motor cycle, they raised their hands to bye Anuradha, on a query made by her, the applicant stated that she was having love affairs with co-accused Sonu @ Harvinder, she wanted to marry with Sonu @ Harvinder, then she was scolded by her, this fact was told by her to the deceased. About 2 or 3 months prior to the alleged incident, the applicant was caught by the deceased by that time she was having talk with Sonu ( Harvinder) by her Mobile phone, then her mobile was snatched by the deceased, in a pre planned manner, the applicant and her paramour committed the murder of the deceased. 5. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, who rejected the same on 16.5.2011. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in FIR, the sister of the applicant has been interrogated, according to her statement also, the only fact came out that the deceased was having illicit relationship with Sonu @ Harvinder, she wanted to marry with Sonu @ Harvinder by taking divorce from the deceased. During investigation, no evidence has been collected by the I.O.to show that as to how and what manner, the deceased was killed, the deceased was sleeping at his tube well, which was away from the village abadi, he may be killed by any person but only on the basis of doubt and suspicion, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is a woman and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. She is in jail since 9.4.2011, she may be released on bail. 7. She is a woman and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. She is in jail since 9.4.2011, she may be released on bail. 7. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A.and counsel for the complainant that the deceased was killed in the night at his tube well, if the first informant was having any ill will against the applicant her name would have been disclosed in the FIR honestly, the FIR has been lodged against unknown miscreant, but during the investigation the statement of the real sister of the applicant has also been recorded by the I.O., she clearly stated that on 2.4.2011, the co-accused Sonu alias Harvinder and Sonu alias Yogendra had come to the village of the deceased because they were residents of the village of the applicant, they went after flying the hands with the applicant. The applicant was having illicit relationship with Sonu @ Harvinder and she has told that this fact to the witness Smt. Rashmi that she wanted to marry with Son @ Harvinder after taking divorce from the deceased. The applicant was having illicit relationship with Sonu @ Harvinder and she has told that this fact to the witness Smt. Rashmi that she wanted to marry with Son @ Harvinder after taking divorce from the deceased. The applicant was studying in B.A. II year, she was free style woman, it has been stated by the first informant Dharam Vir Singh that he was having two sons namely, Kalyan Singh and deceased Amit @ Bablu , Amit was married with the applicant and his elder son Kalyan Singh was married with Rashmi, the elder sister of the applicant, the deceased was High School failed and applicant was appearing in B.A.II examination, she was having a female child of one and ¼ year old, prior to the commission of the alleged murder, a phone call was received by the cousin of the deceased Mahendra Singh, the caller wanted to talk with the deceased, then mobile phone was handed over to Amit he was called by caller for divorcing the applicant , the deceased asked the caller to disclose his name, then he replied that the lady standing with you, namely, Anuradha will tell my name, thereafter, the caller abused the deceased and dis-connected the phone, thereafter Anuradha was insisted to disclose the name of the caller, instead of disclosing the name of the caller, she demanded divorce, the deceased has not been killed on account of any land dispute or its partition, during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of one Sunil Kumar Singh who stated that of the fateful night i.e. on 2.4.2011, co-accused Sonu alias Harvinder, co-accused Sonu alias Yogendra had also come to the village of the deceased, they inspected the place of occurrence including the tube well, they came to the house of the deceased and met the applicant, the co-accused Sonu alias Harvinder was arrested by the police, at his pointing out one iron rod was recovered. He confessed before the police that he was having love affairs with the applicant Anuradha, she wanted to take divorce but the deceased refused to give her divorce then he was told by the applicant to eliminate the deceased, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the applicant is the wife of the deceased, she may be released on bail. 8. 8. Considering the facts circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., counsel for the complainant and considering the statement of Smt. Rashmi, the real sister of the applicant and the statement of Sunil Kumar, it appears that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, there is no direct witness account, the applicant is wife of the deceased, who allegedly got success in eliminating her husband with the help of her paramour, 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. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.