Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Indu Chauhan @ Indu vs State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2023

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                             -1-
                                                   CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022



                                                                            R
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9775 OF 2022
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   INDU CHAUHAN @ INDU
                      W/O. DEVENDRA SINGH,
                      36 YEARS,
                      R/AT FLAT NO.2503,
                      HIRA NANDINI TOWERS,
                      OMR ROAD,
                      CHENNAI-600 119.

                                                             ...PETITIONER


                 (BY SRI.B.V.ACHARYA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally
signed by              SRI. R.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
LAKSHMI T
Location: High
Court of         AND:
Karnataka        1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                      AMRUTHHALLI P.S.,
                      BANGALORE.
                      HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
                      BENGALURU-560 001.
                      (REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)



                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                 (BY SRI.BHANUPRAKASH V.G., SPL. PP)
                             -2-
                                     CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING       TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.877/2021
(CR.NO.18/2021) OF AMRUTHAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364, 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JDUGE, BENGLAURU.
     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER,      THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER        : 05.04.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER: 20.04.2023

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by accused No.3 to enlarge her on bail in Crime No.18/2021 of Amruthahalli Police Station, now pending in S.C. No.877/2021 on the file of the Court of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. Charge-sheet has been filed against accused No.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri B.V.Acharya for Sri R.P.Chandrashekhar appearing for -3- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Bhanuprakash V.G. appearing for respondent-State.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case:- Deceased Siddarth Devender Singh is the son of the first informant, from his first wife. The petitioner/accused No.3 is the second wife of the first informant. She has two minor children. First informant's sister Dr.Anjali Geetha and her husband Dr. Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW.6) have no children. They owned valuable immovable properties in Bengaluru. After the death of his wife, Dr. Vishnu Shankar Shukla was looking after the properties. Thinking that the entire property will be inherited by the deceased, and her children will not get the property, the petitioner hatched a plan to eliminate Siddarth Devender Singh. She entered into a conspiracy with accused No.1, with whom she had an acquaintance and in turn the said accused conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4. The petitioner assured payment of Supari of Rs.4,00,000/- to them for eliminating Siddarth Devender Singh. In furtherance of the -4- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 conspiracy held, the petitioner came and stayed in flat No.402 of Coleman Stay Abode Apartment, situated at Bhuvaneshwari, Dasarahalli, Bangalore, where the deceased was staying. She secured other accused persons to the said Apartment on the night intervening 18- 19.01.2021. Accused No.2 remained in the Swift Desire Car bearing Registration No.AP-03-CB-4034 and accused Nos.1 and 4 entered the apartment. They made the deceased to consume liquor and as per the plan hatched by them, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 took the deceased in their car towards Kolar, wherein accused No.4 got down from the car. Accused No.1 and accused No.2 took the deceased towards Andhra Pradesh. On the way, they strangulated him with the help of seatbelt of the car. After committing the murder, they drove towards Nellore and buried the dead body in a forest area. Accused No.4, who had got down from the car, returned to the Apartment and handed over the mobile phone and wallet of the deceased to the petitioner/accused No.3.

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

5. C.R.Devender Singh, father of the deceased lodged a missing complaint at Amruthahalli Police Station on 25.01.2021, regarding missing of his son Siddarth Devender Singh, which came to be registered in Cr.No.15/2021. On 30.01.2021, after coming to know from the security guard of the apartment that his son was forcibly taken in a car by two unknown persons, he lodged a complaint against unknown persons which came to be registered in Cr.No.18/2021 of Amruthahalli Police Station for offence punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Investigation revealed that accused No.2 took treatment in a hospital in Andhra Pradesh for some injuries sustained by him. It was also revealed that accused No.1 had committed suicide on 29.01.2021. Accused No.2 was arrested on 30.01.2021 and his voluntary statement was recorded. The Investigating Agency collected the CCTV footages, call records etc.

6. On 02.02.2021, accused No.2, led the police and others to the place where the dead body was buried -6- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 and it was exhumed. Petitioner/accused No.3 came to be arrested on 02.02.2021 and her voluntary statement was recorded.

7. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated. The motive alleged against her for commission of the offence is absurd and unacceptable. Except the voluntary statement, there are no other concrete material collected against the petitioner to show her complicity in the commission of the offence. There is no incriminating material recovered at her instance and the story of payment of Supari etc., is without any basis. There is no iota of evidence to show that she had sent any message from the mobile phone of the deceased after he was found missing.

8. The learned Senior counsel has further contended that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years. She being a woman is entitled for bail, particularly, in a case of circumstantial evidence where -7- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 generally bail is granted. Reliance was placed on a decision rendered in Crl.P.No.2306/2022 of this Court disposed on 12.05.2022, in which a reference was made to a decision of a coordinate bench in case of Kavitha vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No. 2509/2019 decided on 05.08.2019, wherein this Court granted bail to a woman accused of committing an offence punishable under sections 302, 120B r/w 34 of IPC laying emphasis on Section 437 of Cr.P.C. and also relying on the judgment of a coordinate bench, wherein it is held that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that a strong prima facie case is made out against a woman, still the court can exercise its discretion and it may enlarge a lady on bail with conditions.

9. The learned Senior counsel would also rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balkrishna Tukaram Angre vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2017 SCC online SC 2093, where in a case of circumstantial evidence, considering that the accused has -8- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 been in custody for 15 months, the Apex Court released him on bail.

10. The learned Senior counsel has also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2018) 16 SCC 10 to contend that even if the offence charged is serious one, that by itself cannot be the ground to outrightly deny the benefit of bail, if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. It is contended that the burden is upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the petitioner and that she was part of a conspiracy. In support of the said contention reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC

784. Reliance was also placed on the orders passed by the coordinate Benches wherein bail was granted to a woman accused.

11. The learned Senior counsel has also relied on a decision in Bhagirathsinh vs. State of Gujarat reported -9- CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022 in (1984) 1 SCC 284 to contend that even where a prime case is established the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment, but to see whether the presence of the accused will be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.

12. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor having filed the statement of objections would contend that this is a case wherein, the petitioner, a prime accused with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4 committed the murder of first informant's son for property and there are sufficient material collected showing her complicity in the crime. He contends that the petitioner was having close acquaintance with accused No.1 and he assured payment of supari of Rs.4 lakhs to execute the plan and there are materials to show that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was transferred on three occasions to the accused. He contends that as per the plan hatched by all the accused,

- 10 -

accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have gone to the apartment where the deceased was staying and kidnapped him in their car and took him towards Andhra Pradesh and on the way he was strangulated with the seatbelt of the car and murdered. He contends that there are call detail records collected by the Investigating Agency to show that there were multiple calls and messages exchanged between accused No.1 and the petitioner herein. He contends that the petitioner has also asked other accused to handover the mobile phone and wallet of the deceased and after receiving the same from accused No.4 she has sent messages to the mother of the deceased to mislead the complainant and others. He contends that there are recordings of close circuit camera installed at the residential apartment of the deceased, clearly showing that on the intervening night of 18-19.01.2021 accused Nos.1 and 2 had entered into the residential apartment of the deceased, when this petitioner was very much present, and kidnapped the deceased in the car in which accused No.2 was waiting. He further contends that after

- 11 -

committing the murder, at the instance of the petitioner the luggage and laptop of the deceased was taken away by accused No.2 from the apartment. He therefore contends that the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused is evident and writ large. He contends, the petitioner being the prime accused is capable of tampering the prosecution witnesses and there is also flight risk as she claims to be having business in Shimla and temporarily residing in Chennai. He contends that when serious charges like the one are made, the petitioner is not entitled for bail merely on the ground that she is a woman or she has been lodged in the prison.

13. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned Sessions Judge having considered the serious nature of the allegation and prima facie material collected against the petitioner has rejected her bail petitions twice and even before this Court this is a successive bail petition. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442 in the case of

- 12 -

Mamta Nair vs. State of Rajasthan and another, wherein bail was denied to a woman accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 302, 452 and 120B of IPC. Reliance is also placed on other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He therefore, seeks to reject the petition.

14. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that initially at the crime stage the petitioner had preferred criminal petition No.2482/2021 before this Court and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.06.2021 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court in view of filing of the charge-sheet. After dismissal of her petition filed before the learned Sessions Court, petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.5427/2021. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2022 permitting the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Sessions Court, keeping open all the contentions. Thereafter once again

- 13 -

the Sessions Court has rejected the prayer for bail vide order dated 17.09.2022.

15. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused No.3 is the second wife of first informant-C.R.Devender Singh. Deceased Siddarth Singh is the son of the first informant born to his first wife namely Smt. Mala Singh, (CW.2). The first informant's sister one Dr. Anjali Geetha and her husband Dr. Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW.6) owned valuable immovable properties in Bengaluru and they had no issues. As per the statement of objections filed by the prosecution the deceased was initially residing in U.S.A and after his return from U.S.A, the first informant was not responding to the financial needs of the petitioner and being issueless, CW.6-Vishna Shankar Shukla who was very close to his nephew Siddarth Singh had a plan to inherit his properties worth several crores in his name. Thinking that her children would not get any share in the property, the

- 14 -

petitioner hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased by giving supari to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

16. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reinstated that while deciding an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits would not be necessary since the criminal trial is still to take place. The duty to record reasons is significance Safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the Court is exercised in a judicious manner. The Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

"38. x x x x x It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether ball should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C would not launch

- 15 -

upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. x x x x x".

39. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution- is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons

- 16 -

for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non- application of mind. This Court observed:

(SCC p.527, para.8)

8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's orders shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course."

17. It is also useful to refer to the relevant para in the decision rendered in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of

- 17 -

Delhi and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 which is extracted hereunder:

"The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"

which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge."

- 18 -

18. In the case on hand, the motive is attributed against the petitioner. A perusal of the charge-sheet material would prima facie show that CW.6 namely Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla and his deceased wife, who is none other than the sister of first informant were issueless and they had valuable immovable properties in Bengaluru. Statement of CW.6 would reveal, when he was requested by the first informant for executing a GPA in his name, he had told him that he would discuss with deceased about the same and even the petitioner herein had discussed with him. The prosecution has placed prima facie material to show that the deceased was staying in one Coleman Stay Abode Apartment in Bengaluru and the petitioner herein who was usually staying in Chennai along with her children had come to the said apartment prior to the date of incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place on the intervening night of 18-19.01.2021. The statement of the security guard (CW.5) shows that on the said night the deceased was taken by other accused persons in a car. The prosecution has collected CC TV footages as well as

- 19 -

the call detail records to show the acquaintance of accused No.1 and the petitioner herein as well as the payment of Rs.25,000/- through the sister of the petitioner. Further cash of Rs.25,000/- on two occasions on 19.01.2021 and another sum of Rs.25,000/- on 20.01.2021 was transferred to CW.40, sister of accused No.2. Statement of CW.2 namely Mala Singh, mother of deceased shows that even after the murder of her son on 19.01.2021, she received whatsapp messages from his mobile phone from 20.01.2021 till 24.01.2021. The mobile phone was said to be collected by the petitioner herein from accused No.4 after the murder was committed and the petitioner herein has misled everyone by sending messages to CW.2 in order to show that the deceased is still alive. The material collected by the prosecution prima facie disclose that the petitioner was in constant touch with accused Nos.1 and 2 even prior to the incident and even on the date of incident. The C.C. TV Footages collected by the prosecution shows that after the commission of the murder the luggage belonging to the deceased was taken from the apartment

- 20 -

by accused No.4. The missing complaint lodged on 25.01.2021 itself shows that there was a message sent by the deceased on 23rd and 24.01.2021 stating that he is travelling to U.S.A etc when by that time the deceased was no more and he was murdered on 19.01.2021 itself.

19. The material collected by the prosecution prima facie show that the petitioner was very much present in the apartment from where the deceased was kidnapped by other accused persons on the night intervening 18/19-01- 2021. Even when the missing complaint was filed on 25.01.2021 and a complaint was lodged by CW.1, father of the deceased on 30.01.2021 and registration of a case under Section 363 r/w 34 of IPC, petitioner has not informed the matter to the informant or any others. The materials prima facie show the complicity of the petitioner who is the main conspirator in the alleged crime.

20. Merely because the petitioner is a woman, that itself is not a ground to enlarge her on bail particularly when she is arraigned as the main conspirator at whose

- 21 -

instance the crime is committed. A prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for a heinous offence committed by her. Petitioner has hatched the plan to commit murder and she is instrumental in executing the same. In such a circumstance Section 437 of Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prosecution apprehends that there is a flight risk in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail as she is not a resident of Bengaluru and does not have a permanent residential address. Most of the witnesses are either related or known to the petitioner. Hence, influencing or tampering the prosecution witnesses is also not ruled out. The offence alleged being one punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner itself is not a ground at this stage to enlarge her on bail. The facts and circumstances of each case has to be weighed before exercising the judicial discretion to grant or refuse bail. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this

- 22 -

Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Petition is dismissed.

Observations made in this order is confined to the disposal of this petition and shall not influence the trial of the case in any manner.

SD/-

JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1