Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

Geeta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-03

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 90 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The deceased was a member of the joint family. All the adult family members have been arrested and there is no one to look after the children aged 11 years, 08 years and 05 years. The petitioner is a chronic heart patient and has undergone cardiac surgery in PGI. She has recovered from scrub typhus and is suffering from ESCHAR with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The petitioner has roots in the society and is unlikely to abscond. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received an information on 28.10.2024 from Civil Hospital, Sundernagar that a woman was brought to Civil Hospital in burnt condition. The police went to the hospital and asked the Medical Officer regarding the victim’s competence to make a statement. The Medical Officer certified that the victim was not fit to make the statement and referred her to PGI, Chandigarh. The victim’s father made a statement before the police, stating that the victim was married to Pawan Kumar. The petitioner and other co-accused harassed the victim for not doing household chores. Co-accused Chuhru Ram used to act indecently with the victim and she complained to the petitioner but the petitioner did not take any action. The victim’s husband used to beat her in a state of intoxication. The petitioner and other co-accused used to abuse the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim subsequently succumbed to her injuries, and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was burn shock consequent to thermal burns. The victim’s husband used to beat her in a state of intoxication. The petitioner and other co-accused used to abuse the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim subsequently succumbed to her injuries, and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was burn shock consequent to thermal burns. It was found after the investigation that the petitioner and co-accused did not permit the victim to visit her parental home. They used to abuse the victim. The co-accused Chuhru Ram used to act indecently with her. The victim told this fact to the present petitioner, who found fault of the victim. Victim’s Mangalsutra was missing and the petitioner taunted her by saying that she had sold it in the market, however, lateron the mangalsutra was found with the husband of the victim. The petitioner also entered into a compromise in which she undertook not to cast aspersions upon the victim’s character. The petitioner is involved in the commission of the heinous offence. Hence the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. As per the compromise, the petitioner had undertaken not to cast aspersions on the character of the victim on 16.4.2023. The victim committed suicide on 28.10.2024 after the lapse of one and a half years, and it cannot be said that the petitioner’s act had led the victim to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the victim had made a complaint against co-accused Chuhru Ram to the petitioner but the petitioner did not take any action. She had also taunted the victim which compelled her to commit suicide. The allegations made against the petitioner are heinous. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The petitioner is a woman. Section 480 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that the Court may direct a person accused of or suspected of commission of any non-bailable offence be released on bail if such person is a child or a woman or is sick or infirm. 9. The petitioner is a woman. Section 480 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides that the Court may direct a person accused of or suspected of commission of any non-bailable offence be released on bail if such person is a child or a woman or is sick or infirm. This provision applies to a person brought before the Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, but the Courts have to keep this special provision in mind while considering the bail application of the persons falling in the categories mentioned in Section 480 of BNSS. It was laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Nethra vs State of Karnataka (12.05.2022 - KARHC): MANU/KA/2055/2022 that a woman can be released on bail even in case of murder because of special provisions under Section 437 of CrPC. It was observed: “In terms of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., bail can be granted in a non-bailable offence on three circumstances as depicted in the proviso: (i) being a person below 16 years of age, (ii) a woman and (iii) is sick or infirm. The petitioner is a woman. She is entitled to consideration under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Before applying the aforesaid provision to the facts of the case and considering the case of the petitioner for enlargement on bail, it is germane to notice the application of the said provision by coordinate Benches of this Court all in the case of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and they being women. xxxxxxx All the afore-quoted judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court were considering the purport of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and were cases where accused No. 1 therein were women, and all of them alleged of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for commission of murder. It is also a matter of record that the alleged accomplice in the act of murder, Vijay Kumar, is granted bail on 13-04-2022 by the learned Sessions Judge. For the aforesaid facts, the statute, i.e., Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and its application in the judgments of three coordinate Benches all would ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the fact that the offence alleged is under Section 302 of the IPC. For the aforesaid facts, the statute, i.e., Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and its application in the judgments of three coordinate Benches all would ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the fact that the offence alleged is under Section 302 of the IPC. It is not the law that bail should always be denied in a case where the offence punishable is death or life imprisonment. In exceptional cases, if the statute permits and the facts not being so gory and grave criminal antecedents shrouding the culprit, the consideration in such cases would be different.” 10. A perusal of the status report shows that the victim had made specific allegations against her husband regarding beating and against her father-in-law regarding indecent behaviour. Allegations were made against the petitioner that she was harassing the victim for not doing the household chores and she had not taken any action when the victim complained to her about the behaviour of the co-accused, Chuhru Ram. The status report also shows that the victim had also made complaints to her parents who had also advised her not to take any action in the matter. Hence, prima facie the inaction of the petitioner cannot be used as a circumstance against her. 11. The police have relied upon the compromise dated 16.4.2023 in which the petitioner undertook not to make any derogatory remarks regarding the victim’s character. The victim committed suicide on 28.10.2024 after the lapse of nearly one and a half years of the compromise. The time lapse between the compromise and the suicide prima facie makes it doubtful that the petitioner’s act contributed to the victim’s suicide. 12. The petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2024. The status report shows that the charge sheet was filed on 24.12.2024 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar is not shown to have committed the charge sheet to learned Sessions Judge for trial. Thus, there is no likelihood of the early commencement and conclusion of the trial. 13. Keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the time between the compromise and suicide as well as the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely. Thus, there is no likelihood of the early commencement and conclusion of the trial. 13. Keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the time between the compromise and suicide as well as the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely. Being a woman, she is entitled to special treatment and her pre-trial detention will not be justified. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against her and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Mandi, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.