Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 899 (HP)

Bhura v. State of H. P.

2022-12-30

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is accused of commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC. The case was registered against the petitioner and another vide FIR No. 124 of 2021, dated 24.09.2021 at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. 2. Petitioner is facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. Prosecution evidence is in the process of being recorded. 3. Allegations against the petitioner and her co-accused are that they caused death of husband of petitioner named Shri Mohammad Rafi and her three minor children. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 13/14 September, 2021, petitioner with her co-accused firstly assaulted deceased Shri Mohammad Rafi with a sharp edged weapon and thereafter flamed the house to fire in which said Shri Mohammad Rafi along with three minor children were sleeping. Shri Mohammad Rafi and his children died of burn injuries and asphyxia. 4. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that she is innocent and has committed no offence much less the offence as alleged against her. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that she had no motive to cause the death of her entire family. The incident has been alleged to be caused by accident in which the petitioner is also stated to have received burn injury. It is further submitted that the mother of deceased has been examined during trial as PW-1 and she has not implicated the petitioner in any manner. It is further stated that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year and deserves to be released on bail, especially being a woman. 5. Prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that there is sufficient material on record to suggest the existence of prima facie case against the petitioner. It has further been contended that keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of allegations against the petitioner, she does not deserve any leniency. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 7. Undoubtedly, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. She is accused of a very heinous crime. It is alleged against the petitioner that she caused the death of her husband as well as three minor children by entering into a criminal conspiracy with her co-accused. 8. 7. Undoubtedly, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. She is accused of a very heinous crime. It is alleged against the petitioner that she caused the death of her husband as well as three minor children by entering into a criminal conspiracy with her co-accused. 8. Though, at the stage of deciding the petition for bail, this Court will not venture into scanning of minute details of prosecution case, still the material on record can always be looked into for the purpose of assessing gravity and seriousness of allegations. Learned trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC, after application of mind. The order passed by learned trial Court, whereby the existence of prima facie case was held against the petitioner was never assailed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, there is no difficulty to hold that there exists prima facie material against the petitioner. 9. It is revealed from the status report filed on behalf of the respondent that only minor burn injuries were found on the hands of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner was also the occupant of the same house which was gutted in fire causing death of four human beings. It is incomprehensible that petitioner could escape with just minor burn injuries on her hands, when her three minor children were gasping for breath. It is not believable petitioner would not make efforts to save her minor children from the fire and while doing so would escape only with minor injuries. 10. Seriousness and gravity of allegations and existence of prima facie material therefor is sufficient to reject the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. The offences, if proved against the petitioner, may attract severest of the punishment under the Indian Penal Code. 11. Prosecution evidence is at initial stage and material witnesses are yet to be examined. The possibility of petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out, keeping in view the conduct attributed to her. 12. On earlier occasion also petitioner had approached this Court with similar prayer, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time had sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh. The possibility of petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out, keeping in view the conduct attributed to her. 12. On earlier occasion also petitioner had approached this Court with similar prayer, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time had sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh. The permission was granted to him with liberty as prayed vide order dated 25.02.2022 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 149 of 2022. 13. It is trite that successive bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in the same FIR are not maintainable unless some changed circumstance is shown. Otherwise, exercise of jurisdiction to entertain the successive bail applications amount to review of previous order of the same Court, which is not permissible as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh Man vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, (2001) 1 SCC 169 . 14. Evidently, earlier bail application was withdrawn on behalf of the petitioner, as the court was not inclined to accept the prayer for bail. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the bar to file successive bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., will not apply in the case. No change in circumstances has been shown by the petitioner. Merely because few prosecution witnesses have been examined and one of them had allegedly not supported the prosecution case cannot be said to be changed circumstance. 15. In the light of the above discussion, it he held that there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only.