Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 625 (UTT)

Aarzoo v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-11-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Rejoinder affidavits are taken on record. Miscellaneous Applications IA No.1 of 2023 and IA No.4 of 2023 stand disposed of, accordingly. 2. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA no.3 of 2023 stands disposed of, accordingly. 3. Applicant Smt. Aarzoo is in judicial custody in FIR No.226 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Jwalapur, District- Haridwar. She has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The applicant was the wife of the deceased. ON 29.04.2022, at about 11-11:30, late in the evening, she along with her husband deceased went in her bedroom. It was Ramzan period. The informant, who happened to be the mother of the deceased, knocked at their door at about 3:00, in the morning, but the FIR states that the applicant told it to the informant that the deceased is not well. On subsequent occasions also, the applicant so replied to the informant. Subsequently, at 10:00, in the morning, when the door was opened, the deceased was found dead in the room. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case fit for bail; the applicant did not commit any offence; the medical examination, the post mortem report and the medical board report suggest that it is a case of suicidal hanging. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the informant would submit that much after the FIR in the instant case was lodged, the applicant herself had lodged an FIR bearing FIR No. 380 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC against the informant of this case, alleging that it is the informant, who had administered poisonous substance to the applicant and her husband, the deceased, due to which, the applicant became unconscious whole night and her husband, the deceased, died. 8. Learned counsel for the informant would also submit that during investigation, the police found that, in fact, on the fateful night, the applicant was interacting on social media with her boyfriend without any interruption. Therefore, the FIR lodged by the applicant was expunged. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the initial doctors, who conducted post-mortem has not ruled out the question of strangulation, though, they have also suggested that it may be a case of suicidal handing. 10. Therefore, the FIR lodged by the applicant was expunged. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the initial doctors, who conducted post-mortem has not ruled out the question of strangulation, though, they have also suggested that it may be a case of suicidal handing. 10. Learned State Counsel would submit that initially, in the post-mortem report, the doctors had suggested that it is a case of suicidal handing/strangulation, but, subsequently, the Board of Doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh (“AIIMS Rishikesh”), suggested that it was a case of suicidal handing alone, and not of strangulation. 11. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 12. The site plan is on record, which records that the blade of the fan were twisted and there was a cloth stuck in it, and the second part of the cloth was found from an Almirah in the room. 13. Initially, the Doctors, who conducted the post-mortem report suggested that it was a case of handing/strangulation, but, subsequently, the Investigating Officer (“IO”) sought opinion of the Board of Doctors at AIIMS Rishikesh. In supplementary case diary, on 21.04.2023, the IO has recorded the finding of the Medical Board of AIIMS Rishikesh, according to which, it was the case of suicidal hanging, and not of strangulation. 14. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 15. The bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.