Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vibha Singh @ Netain vs State Thru. C.B.I. on 12 December, 2019
Author: Aniruddha Singh
Bench: Aniruddha Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- BAIL No. - 998 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Vibha Singh @ Netain Opposite Party :- State Thru. C.B.I. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Singh,Uday Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Ishan Baghel,Randhir Singh Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Kumar Singh,Advocate for the applicant, Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate for opposite party as well as Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Sri Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate appearing for CBI and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 11.1.2012(after 5 days of incident) against unknown person alleging that on 6.1.2012 Sarita Tomar(mother of complainant) was killed brutally. According to postmortem report, body was totally disintegrated due to reverse extent of burn after death and cause of death was found shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries and disintegration of body. After investigation by the police, Final Report(Closure Report) was submitted and it was found that deceased was living in her residence alone and at the time of cooking breakfast she received burn injuries by gas accidentally and it was found that nobody had killed the deceased.
Later on, case was reopened and investigation was done by CBI and it was found that there was illicit relationship between deceased and Ram Swaroop(husband of applicant Vibha Singh), hence applicant Vibha Singh, Vinod Singh(Dewar of applicant) and Sarvesh(servant) had killed the deceased. During investigation, three tests were conducted. Polygraph test was conducted on 31.10.2014, Brain-Mapping Test on 8.4.2015 and Narco Test was conducted on 17.7.2015 and both Polygraph and Narco tests were found negative but in the test of Brain-Mapping test of applicant, she stated that "Main madam se pareshaan rahti thi. Maine madam ka maarne ki yojana banayi. Madam School me akeli thi. Us din madam ne sarvesh ko school me bulaya. Sarvesh ne bataya ki vo ab aaata lene gaya hai. Madam school me akeli thi. Madam ke upar acid ke baad diesel daala. Maine madam ko tadapte hue dekha. Madam ko maarne ke baad mera dil halka hua." She stated in scenario 4 that "Vahan pe maine school garden me madam ki body dekhi. Maine madam pe tejab nahi dalwaya. Maine madam ko nahi jalwaya."
After conclusion, charge sheet was submitted.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady and languishing in jail since 3.8.2018(more than one year and four months) having no criminal history. She has been falsely implicated. Initially Final Report( Closure Report) was submitted by the Investigating agency. FIR was lodged against unknown person after five days of incident after thought with legal consultation only on the basis of suspicion. So far as evidence against the applicant is concerned, three tests were conducted in this case and according to expert's opinion in two tests nothing was found against the applicant. Only in one test(Brain Mapping Test) different version was found; according to one, applicant with the help of other persons killed the deceased and according to another version, she had done nothing with the deceased. Hence, according to expert's opinion, it is a case where there is doubt whether applicant was involved in the crime or not. With regard to above tests, in the case of Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263 and in Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No. 3230/2016 Pappuram s/o Mangilal vs. State of Rajasthan it was held that above tests are not conclusive evidence and are simply expert's opinion. Except the expert's opinion, there is no legal and cogent evidence against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that incident is of year 2012. The applicant has been tortured from 2012 and Brain Mapping Test was conducted on 8.4.2015 and till then she was under pressure of this type of things and these things were circulating in her mind. Hence different version was given by the applicant in the Brain Mapping Test. If we rely on the test, even then there is different version and it is the case of no evidence. She is entitled to the benefit of section 437 Cr.P.C.There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future due to heavy work load in trial Court. In case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for CBI opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that charge sheet was submitted on the basis of Brain Mapping Test. Hence according to expert's opinion, applicant has committed brutal murder of the deceased but he admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Smt. Vibha Singh alias Netain involved in S.T. No.887 of 2018, RC-SI-1 2013, under Section 302/201/203/120B IPC, Police Station CBI, SC-1, New Delhi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 P.P.