* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPL. No.793/2011
Date of Decision : 26.04.2012
REENA YADAV ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Shyam
Sharma & Ms. Archana, Advs.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Adv. for the
complainant
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No.231/2009 under Section 302/120B/34 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered by PS:Neb Sarai, Delhi, in respect of which the Trial is pending before the Competent Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused, Meena, sister of the present petitioner, has already been released on bail and the role of the present Bail Appl. No.793/2011 Page 1 of 5 petitioner is allegedly similar to that of the role of her sister, Meena and, therefore, on the ground of parity, she deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. It has been further contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the only evidence which has been brought on record by the Prosecution is that a knife was recovered from her which is alleged to have been used as a weapon of offence but this fact has not been fortified by the CFSL, inasmuch as it was not found to contain any blood stains. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that in this regard, a revolver is alleged to have been recovered from Meena, the sister of the present petitioner and, therefore, there is a parity between the two cases.
4. Thirdly, it has been contended by the learned counsel that so far as Parth, the son of the present petitioner is concerned, he had admittedly not seen the petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence, therefore, it could not be said that she was responsible for the murder of the deceased who happened to be her husband.
5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is fully involved in the commission of the most heinous crime. It is alleged by Bail Appl. No.793/2011 Page 2 of 5 him that the petitioner was the second wife of the deceased husband.
6. It is further alleged that the deceased and the petitioner used to quarrel invariably over the sale proceeds of a property purported to be sold by the deceased husband of the petitioner. It has been contended that 15 days prior to the date of the death of the deceased, the petitioner had left the company of the deceased and shifted to her sister's house. The husband of the petitioner had purportedly sold the property and was not intending to share the proceeds with the petitioner, as a consequence of which she, along with other co-accused persons, namely, Deepak, Dillip and Praveen got her husband killed. It has also been alleged that the assailants, after killing the deceased, were looking for the property papers and the sale proceeds thereof. It has also been contended that around the time when the deceased was killed, the petitioner and the other co-accused persons were not only found to be in the immediate vicinity of the commission of place of incident, but they were also found to be in touch with each other which clearly showed their complicity.
Bail Appl. No.793/2011 Page 3 of 5
7. On the basis of these facts, it has been contended that this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, as she has committed the most heinous crime of getting her husband killed.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective parties and gone through the record.
9. I am also of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner because a bird's eye view of the entire evidence, which has been recorded by the Prosecution, shows the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and if that be so, then this is one of the most heinous crimes where a woman gets her husband killed with the help of other accused persons.
10. So far as the question of parity is concerned, I do not think that there is any parity between the case of the petitioner and that of her sister, Meena. So far as Meena is concerned, neither has she played any active role in the commission of the offence nor did she have apparently any claim or demanded any share in the sale proceeds, which had cost the husband of the petitioner his life. As against this, the petitioner, the wife of the deceased is alleged to be Bail Appl. No.793/2011 Page 4 of 5 responsible for his death in collusion and active connivance with other co-accused persons.
11. I, accordingly, feel that this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The bail application is dismissed. However, expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
V.K. SHALI, J APRIL 26, 2012 TP Bail Appl. No.793/2011 Page 5 of 5