High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Beeta And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15845 of 2006  RD-AH 14876 (30 August 2006)
Court No. 47
Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 15845 of 2006
Smt Beeta and anohter .........Vs.............State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the applicants Smt Beeta and Smt Mulayam Kaur with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime no. 131 of 2006, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Babugarh District Ghaziabad.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Rajendra Singh at P.S. Babugarh, Ghaziabad on 10.4.2006 at 9.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred since 7.4.2006 to 10.4.2006. The distance of the police station was 10 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against Sonu on the basis of doubt and suspicion. It is alleged that the deceased Nitesh alias Montu aged about 9 years had gone to see the fair near the Lord Shiva Temple in the evening of 7.4.2006, but he did not return back to his house, then a report of his missing was lodged at the police station on 9.4.2006. On 10.4.2006 the dead body of the deceased was found in a wheat field of one Shishpal. The applicants have been named in the F.I.R. on the basis of the doubt and suspicion because he is cousin (Mausera Brother) of Smt Vijendra the wife of the first informant's younger brother. According to post mortem examination report the cause of death was due to ante mortem cut throat wound, asphyxia and shock, but during investigation the applicants have also been made accused.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P. and Sri Amit Daga learned counsel for the complainant.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that: -
(i)The applicant no. 1 Smt Beeta is the wife of the first informant's younger brother and the applicant no. 2 Smt Mulayam Kaur is real Mausi of the applicant no. 1. They have also been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion. There is no credible evidence against them to establish their involvement in the present case.
(ii)During investigation the I.O. recorded recorded statement of the some witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. as of the first informant Rajendra, Vinod alias Kaliya Tomar, Naresh, Km. Priyanks and Manoj on 10.4.2006, Vijendra Singh, Kamal Singh, Smt Sunita on 20.4.2006, Smt Manju and Smt Ramrati on 21.4.2006, Smt Anita, Kunwar Pal and Sanjeev Kumar on 24.4.2006, Sanjai Singh on 25.4.2006, Ramendra Singh, Chandra Bose, Vedram Sharma and Smt Rameshwari on 27.4.2006. According to their statements the name of the applicants came into light whereas they were named in the F.I.R. The naming of the applicant is after thought.
(iii)There was no motive or intention for the applicants to commit the alleged offence. The allegation made against the applicants is of hatching conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased only to usurp the land of the father of the deceased. It is highly unreliable because after the death of the deceased the applicant no. 1 is not entitled to get the property of his father.
(iv)In the marriage of applicant no. 1 Smt Beeta the applicant no. 2 Mulayam Kaur was mediator, but the husband of the applicant no. 1 was not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and she was compelled to leave the house, thereafter, she was staying at the house of the applicant no. 2. The applicants have been falsely implicated on this ground.
(v)The first informant is having two other brothers also. The allegation that the deceased was a smart boy that is why he was getting more affection in the family then than the son of the applicant no. 1, due to this reason the applicant no. 1 was too much annoyed that is why she hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased is highly unbelievable.
(vi)The allegation that the applicant no. 1 Smt Beeta has disturbed the whole family and she has already extended threat to destroy the family and to fulfill the same object she has become instrumental in committing the murder of the deceased through co-accused Sonu and Ambrish, because Sonu, Ambrish, Afjal and Sajid used to come at her house and they were creating nuisance by committing indecent acts, because the applicant no. 1 was also living jointly.
(vii)During investigation the witness Vijendra the husband of the applicant no. 1 stated that after missing of the deceased he was called by the applicant no. 2 and asked that in case a sum of Rs. 2 lac was given to her the deceased might be recovered and she also stated that in case the deceased is eliminated the land shall be of him and the some other witnesses stated that the character of the applicants was very bad.
(viii)During investigation some of the witnesses stated that the deceased has gone to see the fair in the company of co-accused Sonu, Ambrish, Afjal and Sajid and the deceased was called by them , who went in their company to see the fair, thereafter the deceased was seen in their company when they were going to field where th dead body of the deceased was recovered. During investigation the other links of the evidence were concocted.
(ix)The husband of the applicant no. 1 stated that his wife was making the complaints and she was extending the threats to eliminate the deceased by her brother Sonu and Ambrish because Sonu is the son of the applicant no. 2 and Ambrish is real brother of the applicant no. 1.
(x)The next evidence concocted by the prosecution is that the applicants have confirmed about the murder of the deceased from the above mentioned co-accused persons by way of indication. The applicants are innocent. They have not committed the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the first informant and his other family members.
(xi)Co-accused Ambrish Kumar has been released on bail by another bench of this court on 11.8.2006 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 13344 of 2006, therefore, the applicants may also be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that in the present case a minor boy aged about 9 years has been murdered. He has been murdered by co-accused Sonu, Ambrish, Sajid and Afjal and in furtherance of conspiracy hatched by the applicants. The applicant no. 1 was having strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased and the applicant no. 2 being the Mausi of applicant no. 1 was always encouraging the applicant no. 1 to create the problems in the family and she was also a member of conspiracy. All the family members including the husband of the applicant no. 1 have made the allegation against the applicants during the investigation and at the pointing out of co-accused Sonu the weapon used in the commission of the murder of the deceased was recovered and the deceased was murdered in a pre-planned manner by the applicants. It has also come in the evidence that for committing the alleged offence co-accused Montu alias Nitesh has given assurance to co-accused Afjal to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, but subsequently, only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid. The brother of the applicant no. 1 Ambrish and son of the applicant no. 2 Sonu and their friends Afjal and Sajid were usually visiting the house of the applicant no. 1 and they were behaving indecently even the Nanad of the applicant no. 1 was misbehaved by them. It was objected by other family members. The applicants have hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of he deceased, therefore, the applicants may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence the applicant no. 1 Smt Beeta being the real aunt of the deceased and serious allegations are made against her by her husband and other family members including her father-in-law and she was having a strong motive to commit the alleged offence and her case is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Ambrish and others, therefore the applicant no. 1 is not entitled for bail, so the prayer for bail of the applicant no. 1 Smt Beeta is refused.
However, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the case of the applicant no. 2 Smt. Mulayam Kaur is distinguishable with the case of applicant no. 1 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant no. 2 Smt Mulayam Kaur is entitled for bail.
Let the applicant Smt Mulayam Kaur involved in case crime no.131 of 2006, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Babugarh District Ghaziabad be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.