Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 76 (UTT)

Gulfasha v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-02-10

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This First Bail Application is filed for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 55 of 2019 registered with Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of I.P.C. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged on 15.04.2019 by the brother of the deceased (Parveen Jahan). According to the F.I.R. the sister of the informant was married to the co-accused Mustar Ali about 12 years ago. Out of the said wedlock three issues were born and they were staying with the deceased. The co-accused Mustar Ali again married one Gulfasha, the present applicant. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that Mustar Ali and the present applicant alongwith other co-accused were inflicting physical and mental cruelty on the sister of the informant and were compelling his sister to give divorce to Mustar Ali. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that they instigated his sister for consuming poison. They pressurized his sister for divorce but due to intervention of people, the matter was amicably settled and compromise was arrived between them and as per the compromise, the co-accused Muster Ali agreed to bring the sister of the informant to her matrimonial home, but the sister of the informant was again physically and mentally tortured by co-accused and the present applicant/accused, as a result deceased committed suicide on 14.04.2019. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that there is a delay of about one day in lodging the F.I.R. and this fact itself creating doubt over the entire prosecution story; prosecution failed to collect any evidence against the applicant; marriage of deceased with co-accused is admittedly 12 year old and there is no reason, motive or mens-rea for the applicant to commit the alleged crime; the applicant is a lady, she is entitled to get benefit of Section 437 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. She opposed the bail application, however, the learned Brief Holder concedes that no specific role was found during the investigation against the present applicant. 7. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. 6. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. She opposed the bail application, however, the learned Brief Holder concedes that no specific role was found during the investigation against the present applicant. 7. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . Personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant/accused is a lady and her age is around 31 years. She is in jail since 18.04.2019. According to the learned counsel for the State, there is no evidence on record regarding specific role of the present applicant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.