Reena Yadav vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2012 Latest Caselaw 2752 Del

*              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

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

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.

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

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