Amreen vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Amreen is in judicial custody in FIR No.01 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Bhimtal, District- Nainital. She has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is the third bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1051 of 2020, was rejected on merits on 14.06.2022. The second bail application, being BA2 No.249 of 2022, was dismissed in non-prosecution on 17.11.2022.

According to the FIR, on 02.01.2020, the deceased and the applicant were together. At 3:15 PM, the informant received an information that the deceased has been fired at and he is rushed to a Hospital. An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased. He raised suspicion that it is the applicant, who had killed his brother.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant and the deceased were together. When the deceased was shot, she somehow managed to take the deceased to hospital, informed the family members; circumstances has been taken against the applicant that it is she, who based on her false statement, took lift from a taxi driver when the deceased had medical exigency. He would submit that had the applicant not stated so, no person would have taken the deceased to hospital; this statement of the applicant reveals that she was adamant and she was much sincere that the deceased should get medical assistance at the earliest; the prosecution has already adduced evidence, but no evidence is forthcoming to connect the applicant with the crime.

While hearing the bail application, in 14.08.2023, this Court had posed three questions to learned State Counsel. They are as follows:-

(i) What is the evidence available that the applicant hired the real shooter?

(ii) How could it be said that the applicant was unhappy due to marriage done by the deceased?

(iii) How could it be said that the deceased was in such relationship with the applicant that the applicant wanted him not to marry with to any other person?

Learned State Counsel would submit that, as such, no evidence has been detected uptil now on these aspects.

Learned counsel for the informant also states the same.

The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to who are the witnesses that the prosecution proposes to adduce to elaborate on the points, as stated hereinbefore? He would submit that there are call details.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion, at this stage, is not expected of. Whatever discussion has been made, that restricts to the disposal of the bail application without it being used at any subsequent stage or trial or in any other proceedings.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.