Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pooja Devi Wife Of Shri Sanjay Sharma vs State Of H.P. ....Non-Petitioner on 13 April, 2016
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 404 of 2016
Order Reserved on 8.4.2016
.
Date of Order 13th April 2016
________________________________________________________
Pooja Devi wife of Shri Sanjay Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ....Non-petitioner
________________________________________________________
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ rt For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioner: Mr. M.L. Chauhan and Mr.Rupinder Singh Additional Advocates General.
P.S. Rana, Judge.
Order:- Present anticipatory bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No. 41 of 2016 dated 27.2.2016 registered under Sections 498-A, 307, 302, 34 IPC at P.S. Jawali District Kangra (H.P.) 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 22. It is pleaded that petitioner is innocent and petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case. It is pleaded that there is no direct or indirect evidence .
connecting the petitioner with alleged crime. It is pleaded that dying declaration recorded by SDM Kangra completely eliminates the participation of petitioner in criminal offence. It is pleaded that petitioner has two small children and investigation of case is over and of investigating agency did not require personal custody of petitioner and further pleaded that detention of petitioner rt would not advance the cause of justice in any manner and also pleaded that petitioner will join the investigation of case whenever and wherever directed by investigating agency. It is pleaded that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought.
3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report deceased Sapna Devi was married about 6½ years ago with co-accused Kali Dass son of Rattan Chand. There is recital in police report that after two years of marriage co-accused Puja Devi wife of Sanjay Kumar who is sister-
in-law of deceased generally abused the deceased and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 3 also used to give unwarranted oral remarks. There is recital in police report that on 25.2.2016 deceased telephoned in her parental house and informed that .
accused persons are committing cruelty to deceased in her matrimonail house. There is recital in police report that deceased in hospital informed that Puja Devi co-
accused has abused her and also levelled allegations of adultery and told the deceased that she has kept many of husbands. There is recital in police report that deceased was referred to CHC Jawali and thereafter deceased was rt referred to RPGMC Tanda. There is also recital in police report that site plan was prepared and plastic canny of kerosene oil also took into possession. There is also recital in police report that dying declaration of accused under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was recorded by learned SDM Kangra. There is also recital in police report that as per dying declaration deceased was pushed inside the kitchen by co-accused Ichha Devi, co-accused Rattan Chand, co-accused Puja Devi and co-accused Kali Dass and thereafter accused persons bolted the door from inside and thereafter co-accused Kali Dass, co-accused Ichha Devi, co-accused Puja Devi and co-accused Rattan ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 4 Chand beaten the deceased and thereafter sprinkled the canny of kerosene oil upon body of deceased and thereafter lit the body of deceased with fire. There is .
recital in police report that deceased had died within seven years of her marriage due to cruelty committed upon deceased by accused persons in her matrimonial house and due to allegations of adultery by accused persons. There is recital in police report that deceased of was burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil. There is also recital in police report that report of viscera still awaited.
rt Prayer for dismissal of anticipatory bail application sought.
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record.
5. Following points arise for determination in present anticipatory bail application:-
1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application before filing of investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 5 Procedure 1973 in criminal culpable homicide case amounting to murder?
2. Final Order.
Findings on Point No.1 with reasons .
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence as alleged by investigating agency cannot be decided at this stage.
of Same fact will be decided by learned trial Court after giving due opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is well settled law that rt complicated disputed facts inter se the parties cannot be decided in bail application.
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is mother of two children and petitioner will join the investigation of case whenever and wherever directed by Court and petitioner is female and on these grounds bail petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 6 Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) Larger interests of the public or .
the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 title Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 title The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In present case there are direct allegations against the petitioner that petitioner pushed the deceased inside the kitchen room of and thereafter in furtherance of common intention with co-accused sprinkled kerosene oil upon the body of rt deceased and thereafter lit the body of deceased with fire and consequently deceased died due to fire burnt injuries in her matrimonial house. Allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature relating to commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
As per police report there are direct allegations against the petitioner relating to commission of criminal offence.
Investigation is at the primary stage and final investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has not been filed by investigating agency till today. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant anticipatory bail ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 7 at this stage of the case. Court is of the opinion that investigation will be adversely effected if petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage in the stage of .
initial investigation. Court is of the opinion that interest of State and general public will also be adversely effected if petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at the initial stage of investigation.
8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate of General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and rt grave in nature qua commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder and if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will threat the prosecution witnesses and on this ground anticipatory bail application be declined is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Primafacie there are direct allegations against the petitioner relating to culpable homicide amounting to murder. Court is of the opinion that investigation is at the initial stage and it is not expedient in the ends of justice to relase the petitioner on anticipatory bail till the final investigation report is not filed under Section 173 of Code ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP 8 of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the competent Court of law.
Point No. 1 is answered in negative.
Point No.2 (Final order) .
9. In view of findings on point No.1 anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for disposal of anticipatory bail application filed of under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Code rt of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
(P.S.Rana),
April 13,2016(ms) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:21 :::HCHP