Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neha Shrivas vs State Of U.P.And Another on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2576 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Neha Shrivas
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manava Nand Chaurasiya,Amit Daga
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Neha Shrivas, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No.542 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.
The FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.11.2020 under Section 302 IPC by Smt. Parvati naming the applicant and five other persons as accused alleging therein that her son Ravindra aged about 27 years was married to Neha, the present applicant in the year 2014. Since the marriage, Neha was having an illicit relationship with Ghasi Ram, her father-in-law and husband of the first informant to which she had objected. In the year 2016 they had assaulted the first informant and her younger son also. The said relationship was objected many times by Ravindra, the husband of Neha after which he was got beaten by Vikki, the brother of the applicant Neha. Her husband Ghasi Ram started living with her son Ravindra and Neha in Jhansi behind Ashok Vatika. Some days ago her daughter-in-law gave birth to a child who was born because of the illicit relationship with her husband due to which there was a dispute between Ravindra and Ghasi Ram. On 7.11.2020 in the night her son Ravindra was murdered by the accused persons and then his body was taken and kept at the railway crossing. Before death of Ravindra, he had told of the illicit relationship of his wife with his father to his sister Rekha. The murder of Ravindra has been committed by Neha along with her family members. She got the information of the incident from her younger son Pankaj who was living in Delhi. On receiving the information, she went to Medical College and tried to stop the cremation but her husband and other persons did not stop it. Ghasi Ram and Neha have run away from the house.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the daughter-in-law of the first informant. The FIR has been lodged against the applicant as she was being harassed by the first informant. It is argued that during the investigation, the case was converted under Section 306 IPC. After lodging of the FIR, the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.695 of 2021 (Smt. Neha Vs. State of U.P.) in which vide order dated 18.1.2021 of coordinate Bench of this Court, it was ordered that she shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said order is annexed as Annexure no.17 to the present anticipatory bail application. It is argued that the dead-body of the deceased was found on 8.11.2020 on the railway track. It is further argued that the applicant at the time of incident was having a pregnancy and had delivered a female child on 30.10.2020. She was not present in the town on the fateful day and was in her parental house in Madhya Pradesh. It is argued that there was matrimonial discord between Ghasi Ram and the first informant. The first informant had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2018 against her husband Ghasi Ram and had also filed a complaint under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, the said cases are pending disposal before the concerned courts. Ghasi Ram has filed a divorce petition against his wife who is the first informant of the present case on 1.10.2018. Since Ghasi Ram is in jail, the said petition for divorce has been dismissed in default vide order dated 8.4.2021. The applicant is having a minor child in her lap, para 58 has been placed before the Court. After investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 19.02.2021, copy of which is annexed as annexure no.18 to the anticipatory bail application on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 12.4.2021. It is further argued that the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka, 2016 AIR (SC) 5430 has held that if the husband has developed extra-marital relationship with other woman and wife commits suicide, then the husband is not guilty of abetment. Further the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and others Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 AIR (SC) 2670 has been placed before the Court. It is argued that if the wife commits suicide as her husband has developed extra-marital relationship with another women, the accused cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 306 and 498-A IPC. Further the order dated 5.3.2021 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.272-273 of 2021, Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. and another has been placed before the Court and it is argued that since there was a protective order against the applicant during the pendency of investigation, the applicant deserves to be granted an order in her favour for protection during the pendency of trial. The applicant has no criminal history, para 64 has been placed before the Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR. There are allegations against the applicant. The investigation has concluded and after thorough investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other accused persons. The Investigating Officer has found cogent evidence against the applicant in the present matter. The judgments as relied by learned counsel for the applicant in no manner are helpful as the said two judgments are after full trial but in the present matter, trial is still to commence.
After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There are allegations against the applicant who is the wife of the deceased. The allegations against her is of having illicit relationship with her father-in-law and on opposing the same, she along with her family members and her father-in-law murdered the deceased and put him on a railway track in order to show the case as an accident. The FIR has been lodged by her mother-in-law. The investigation has concluded and after thorough investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other accused persons. The judgments as relied by learned counsel for the applicant are after trial in which evidence has been led and then proceeded but the present stage is a stage in which the applicant has been summoned and trial is yet to begin.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 25.4.2022
Gaurav
