Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Ilyas Etc. on 17 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 209/11
State Vs Mohd. Ilyas Etc.
(Mohd. Ilyas, Gulfam,
Rajkumar and Surender @ Jhunnar)
FIR No: 217/10
P.S. Jaitpur
U/s. 302/120B/201 IPC
Order on Bail:
1.Vide this order I shall disposed of the bail application filed on behalf of accused Mohd. Ilyas, Gulfam, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surender @Jhunnar.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that accused Mohd. Ilyas married deceased Shabana in the year, 2005 and was working in Dubai but used to come to Delhi off and on. As per prosecution case when accused Mohd. Ilyas used to come Delhi and he found deceased Shabana talking on telephone with somebody and she also avoided to disclose to whom she was talking which make him suspicious of her character, when Mohd. Ilyas came back to Delhi on 18/11/10 and he found that deceased again indulging in those activities and has not undergone the monthly periods for last two months and thereafter his suspicion converted into belief that she had illegal relations with State vs. Mohd. Ilyas etc., SC No. 209/11 page no. 1 of 5 somebody. Then he met accused Mohd. Yamin who met him in Dubai and he discloses his problem to accused Mohd. Yamin who told him that he will manage to kill his wife through somebody and during those talks accused Gulfam @ Langra was also with him. Further the total amount of Rs. 3 Lacs is agreed for finishing job. Accused Raj Kumar, Mintoo @ Nirdosh and Surender @ Jhunnar got also involved. Accused Yamin, Raj Kumar, Mintoo @ Nirdosh and Surender @ Jhunnar alongwith Gulfam @ Langra first made reiki to the house of accused Mohd. Ilyas by hiring the maruti van driven by PW12 Ankit Sharma and thereafter again hired and reached the house of accused Mohd. Ilyas. Accused Gulfam @ Langra remained inside the van and all other accused i.e. Raj Kumar, Mintoo @ Nirdosh, Surender @ Jhunnar and Mohd. Yamin went inside the house of accused Mohd. Ilyas and killed Shabana wife of accused Mohd. Ilyas and as mother of accused Mohd. Ilyas seen them then they killed her also.
3. During interrogation accused Mohd. Ilyas disclose the entire story to police pursing to which other accused persons were arrested. During investigation police recovered the knife at the instance of accused Mohd. Yamin and also recovered other knife at the instance of accused Raj Kumar and Mintoo @ Nirdosh.
4. Police further recovered incriminating recoveries of mobile phone and ATMS cards and also recovered earrings (jhumke) and Nokia phone of deceased Shabana at the instance of accused of Surender @ State vs. Mohd. Ilyas etc., SC No. 209/11 page no. 2 of 5 Jhunnar.
5. Ld. counsel for the accused Mohd. Ilyas submitted that out of 34 prosecution witnesses 18 prosecution witnesses are already examined and there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW4 Mohd. Zafar, brother of the deceased is an interested witness and his testimony cannot be relied against the present accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that prosecution could not prove any motive against Mohd. Ilyas. Ld. Counsel further submitted that as per prosecution case the deceased was pregnant, but this plea is not substantiated by the medical evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for accused Rajkumar and Gulfam submitted that accused Gulfam @ Langra is a handicapped person and recovery of knife shown from accused Raj Kumar is planted. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said recovery was witnessed by one Khateeb, who is an interested witness and known to the deceased Shabana family and can't be relied upon. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the accused persons are in custody since October 2010.
7. Ld. Counsel for accused Surender @ Jhunnar submitted that prosecution not able to connect this witness with the said crime. He is not even identified by PW12 Ankit Sharma, who is alleged to brought the accused persons to the scene of crime for commission of offence in Maruti van on that fateful day and there is no other evidence against State vs. Mohd. Ilyas etc., SC No. 209/11 page no. 3 of 5 him except the disclosure statement of coaccused persons.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. Entire prosecution story is that due to suspicion over the character of deceased Shabana, accused Mohd. Ilyas conspired to kill his wife Shabana through accused Yamin, Gulfam @ Langra, Rajkumar, Mintoo and Surender @ Jhunnar. PW12 Ankit Sharma has explained the factum of bringing accused Yamin, Gulfam, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Mintoo and one another person to spot and also identified accused Yamin, Gulfam, Raj Kumar and Mintoo in the court but unable to identify accused Surender @ Jhunnar. There are incriminating recoveries of knife at the instance of accused Rajkumar and Yamin. It is a settled principle of law that at this stage is not suppose to appreciate the evidence, otherwise it will amount to prejudging the case. Therefore, the arguments of ld. Counsels that Ankit Sharma, Mohd. Zafar and Khateeb are not reliable witness, cannot be adjudged at this stage. There are incriminating recoveries of jhumke and mobile phone at the instance of accused Surender @ Jhunnar. Ld. Counsel for the accused Mohd. Ilyas further submitted that prosecution could not prove the motive of extra marital pregnancy by any cogent medical evidence. First of all it is not the case of prosecution that deceased was pregnant, only case of the prosecution is that she was not having her monthly cycle for last two months, this does not necessarily mean that deceased was pregnant. Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Ilyas State vs. Mohd. Ilyas etc., SC No. 209/11 page no. 4 of 5 further submitted that accused could not conspire to kill his mother but there are circumstances created which made other accused persons to kill his mother.
10. Thus keeping in view the gravity and heinousness of offence, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicants/accused Mohd. Ilyas, Gulfam, Raj Kumar and Surender @ Jhunnar on bail. Their bail applications accordingly dismissed. Nothing in this order shall prejudice the the case of accused persons on merits. Copy of this order be also sent to accused persons in jail.
11. List the matter for P.E. for the date fixed i.e, 21.04.2012.
Announced in the open court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
on 17th April, 2012 ASJ03/SE/New Delhi
State vs. Mohd. Ilyas etc., SC No. 209/11 page no. 5 of 5