Mandeep Kour vs UT of J&K and anr

Shahzad Azeem, J

This petition is preferred under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail in favour of the applicant/accused namely Mandeep Kour in FIR No. 73/2023 of P/s Ramgarh under Section

302/109 IPC.

The petitioner is facing trial allegedly for commission of offence under Section 302/109 IPC before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (the trial Court) and the formal charges against the accused have been framed on 20.05.2024. The record of the trial Court suggests that by now, out of 26 listed witnesses, the prosecution has recorded 03 witnesses including PW-2 and PW-3, whereas, only partial statement of PW-5 is recorded so far. PW-2 HC Meera Bakshi a witness to seizure memo of the inquest file and PW-3 PSI Anjum Hussain Shah a witness to the seizure memo of inquest file and disclosure memo whereas, PW-5 Bindu Devi is cited as circumstantial witness and she has been the sister of the deceased, Arti Devi, (wife of accused No. 1-Gurdeep Singh).

The petitioner has also filed application for grant of bail before the trial Court but the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2025 mainly on the ground that the trial is at its initial stage and also for the reasons of seriousness of the alleged offence for which accused are sent up for trial.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused is formally arrested on 08.11.2023 and ever since, her liberty is curtailed without any material connecting her to the alleged commission of offence, coupled with the fact that she is a women, therefore, is entitled to concession of bail in terms of proviso to Section 480 of BNSS. The main ground of bail revolves around the point that the case projected by the prosecution is that the petitioner (A-2) and accused No. 1-Gurdeep Singh were in extra-marital relationship and it was the petitioner who provoked Gurdeep Singh to eliminate the deceased Arti Devi, who was the wife of accused No. 1, but there is no iota of evidence supporting this theory of conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution.

The other ground urged is that the theory of conspiracy hinges on the alleged confession of accused No. 1 which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as, there is no material collected during investigation which connects in any manner the participation or any role played by the petitioner in commission of alleged offence.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, besides filing of objections also resisted the petition on the ground that the trial is at initial stage and keeping in view the seriousness of crime, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail, more particularly, when the alleged crime came to be executed at her instance.

Since, in the objections, the entire detail of the alleged commission of crime including the material connecting against the accused connecting with the commission of offence has been duly mentioned, however, for the sake of brevity, note of the same shall be taken hereinafter. The prosecution story, in brief is that the deceased-Arti Devi, wife of accused No. 1-Gurdeep Singh died under mysterious condition on 27.10.2023 and on culmination of inquest proceedings under Section 175 (1) Cr.PC, it came to fore that the accused No. 1 i.e. husband of the deceased committed murder of his wife by strangulation, therefore, same led to registration of formal case and on culmination of investigation, it came to fore that the accused-husband of the deceased Arti Devi had extra-marital relationship with the accused No. 2, i.e. petitioner herein, therefore, the alleged murder of Mst. Arti Devi was designed and executed by accused-Gurdeep Singh at the instigation of Mandeep Kour (petitioner).

Prima-facie, it is seen that the prosecution had connected the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime by way of hatching of conspiracy and the phone calls allegedly exchanged between the accused No. 1 and petitioner herein, led by collection of CDRs. Admittedly, the role of petitioner in commission of alleged crime as per the prosecution story mainly hinges on the conspiracy theory because it is stated that accused No. 1 and the petitioner herein were intensively fell in love with each other which allegedly took the shape of extra-marital relationship and perhaps, the deceased was the hurdle, therefore, the accused have hatched a conspiracy to done away with the deceased so that there may be no one to be feared of or to object to their extra-marital relationship.

Admittedly, by now, only the evidence of 02 official witnesses is completed and third prosecution witness i.e. statement of PW-5 Bindu Devi is only partially recorded but it has come in her statement that the deceased had told her that the behavior of Gurdeep Singh is not proper. It has also come in her statement that on inquiring regarding the cause of death of the deceased, she was told that cause of death is strangulation.

Notwithstanding, the statement of prosecution witness recorded so far, there are still as many as 23 prosecution witnesses which are yet to be recorded, including the prosecution has to prove the CDRs and also the expert witnesses regarding cause of death.

It is to be further kept in mind that custody certificate in respect of accused Mandeep Kour issued by Superintendent District Jail, Kathua shows that she is behind the bars for total period of 01 year 11 months and 08 days, therefore, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is long incarceration is also bereft of any substance.

The Court is not oblivious of the fact that material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and keeping in view the nature and severity of punishment of the alleged offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, it may be too early in the day to return a finding as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of alleged offence for which, she has been put to trial.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the bail application being found without merit, accordingly, same is dismissed.

However, it is clarified that the present order shall not be construed as the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case at the trial.