Anita Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 125/11 dated 16.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, under sections 302, 34, 120B IPC.

It has been stated that as per prosecution case on 15.10.2011 at about 4.30 p.m., a telephonic information was received by the police that one unknown person was lying in the bushes in an unconscious condition. On receipt of said information, the police visited the spot and found the dead body of Inder Singh at a distance of 50 meters from the road. On 16.10.2011, Amit Thakur lodged a report with the police alleging therein that he had suspicion that someone had committed murder of his brother-in-law Inder Singh and has thrown the dead body at an isolated place. On this, the case was registered.

It has been stated that during investigation, one Pritam Singh was arrested, who during interrogation disclosed that petitioner and Naginder had allured him with Rs. 2,00,000/- for killing Inder Singh. Pritam Singh was in need of money, so he killed Inder Singh with the assistance of Khumb Bahadur. On the statement of Pritam Singh, the petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2011.

It has been stated that except for alleged confessional statement of Pritam Singh there is no other evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed bail application, which has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan on 16.11.2011.

It has been stated that petitioner is innocent, she has been falsely roped in the present case. There is no evidence against the petitioner. It has been stated that no incriminating material is required to be recovered from the petitioner. The investigating agency does not require the personal custody of the petitioner.

The petitioner has two minor sons aged six and four years, who are studying in boarding school. There is no one to look after the children. The investigation in the case is complete but report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has not been filed. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that on 15.10.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. telephonic information was received that an unknown person was lying near Chakki Mor above the road. On this, police went to the spot and found the dead body of a person at a distance of 50-60 feet. The blood was also lying there, which oozed out from the head of the deceased, the face was also smeared with blood. The dead body was identified to be that of Inder Singh.

On 16.10.2011, the statement of Amit Thakur, u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case was registered. It has come during investigation that petitioner and Naginder Kumar were having illicit relations. It was also found that Pritam Singh alias Giani had been working with Inder Singh deceased. He was called and interrogated. During interrogation, Pritam Singh disclosed that Anita and Naginder allured him to kill Inder Singh and they promised to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to him. Pritam Singh was in need of money. He called Khumb Bahadaur on 13.10.2011 whom he knew, who brought hammer from the house of one Ram Pal, Village Suji.

Pritam Singh and Khumb Bahadur travelled in the car of Inder Singh. Pritam Singh had given allurement of girl to Inder Singh. Pritam Singh also talked to Priyanka on mobile phone. Pritam Singh gave hammer blow over the head of Inder Singh, as a result of which he fell down, thereafter Pritam Singh gave more blows on the head of Inder Singh, who died on the spot. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete, but report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has not been filed. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application.

Heard and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Khumb Bahadur is juvenile and he has already been released on bail. The petitioner is constructing a hotel. There was no property in the name of her husband deceased Inder Singh. There is no legal evidence showing illicit relations between the petitioner and Naginder Kumar. There is no legal evidence that petitioner hired Pritam Singh for alleged killing of Inder Singh. The alleged confessional statement of Pritam Singh is inadmissible evidence, it cannot be used against the petitioner u/s 30 of Indian Evidence Act. It has been submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. The prosecution story is improbable and unbelievable. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that Pritam Singh disclosed during interrogation the involvement of Anita Devi, Naginder Singh and Khumb Bahadur. On the basis of lead given by Pritam Singh the case has been investigated and the evidence has been collected. There are serious allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

I have considered the submissions made on either sides. At this stage, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. The investigating agency has collected the evidence both direct and indirect. The section 173 Cr.P.C. report has not yet been filed and, therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the bail application after filing of section 173 Cr.P.C. report. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.