Delhi High Court
Chandan Kaur vs State on 19 March, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 17.02.2020
% Pronounced on : 19.03.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 153/2020
CHANDAN KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. M. Begum, Mr. Ajay P. Tushir,
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Sahil &
Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with Inspector Ram Kishan, PS
Sagarpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner with the following
prayer:-
"Grant regular Bail to the Applicant in terms of Section 439
of the Cr.P.C 1973 in relation to F.I.R. No. 0321 of 2019
registered under Sections 302 of IPC 1860 at PS Sagarpur."
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.7.2019 at about
9.46 pm, an information vide DD entry no. 56A was received in
Police Station, Sagarpur, in which a lady caller described that "at
Gali No.6, Tent Wala School, Main Sagarpur, New Delhi lady
caller ke husband ko kisi ne mara hai kafi injured hai". The call
was marked to ASI Jagbir Singh for taking necessary action. He
reached the spot where he saw that some public persons were
present at the spot and blood was lying on the floor in the house
near Main Gate, and from local enquiry it was revealed that the
injured had been shifted to DDU Hospital through PCR Van. No
eye witness was found at the place of occurrence. When the IO
reached the hospital he found that injured Sharukh was admitted
vide MLC No. 6364/19 and doctor had declared him brought
dead. ASI Jagbir again reached the spot where senior officers
were present and crime team had inspected the scene of crime and
conducted investigation. On local enquiry, it was revealed that
that the injuries were caused by one Joginder Singh @ Joga. So
on the basis of PCR Call and MLC of the deceased the present
case was registered. When the IO reached at DDU Hospital,
there he met with the wife of deceased namely Ms. Alia Ali, who
claimed herself to be the eye witness of the incident and her
statement was recorded. During the course of investigation her
statement was further recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and she
cannot be held liable for the acts of her son. He further submitted
that „exhortation‟ in itself is a very weak piece of evidence and
relied upon Jainul Haq Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 45. He
further submits that the wife of the deceased was not the eye
witness of the case and she has been introduced later on by the
prosecution. He has relied upon some Google Map in order to
bring home the point that it was not possible for the wife of the
deceased to have reached the place of incident within the time
frame as stated by her because distance between the two places is
2.4 km and travel time is 12 minutes.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State submitted that
the wife of the deceased had specifically attributed role to the
petitioner in her statement. It is further argued by learned APP
that apart from „exhortation‟ there are other allegations against
the petitioner like removing the trace of blood and destroying the
vital piece of evidence. It is further argued that the allegations
are grave and serious in nature and petitioner was involved in the
incident since the beginning of the assault and later on she ran
away from the spot along with the other co-accused persons.
5. It is further submitted that petitioner though is an old lady
but she is a hardened criminal having 18 cases against her. The
wife of the deceased was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C and
in that statement she had made specific allegations against the
petitioner. The incident as per the prosecution not only took
place outside the house of the accused but also inside the house of
the accused. The contention of learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that „exhortation‟ is a weak piece of evidence and his
reliance on Jainul Haq (supra) is of no help to the petitioner
because apart from exhortation, there are also other serious
allegations made by eye witness against her. The contention that
the petitioner is an old lady and is entitled to bail also does not cut
much ice because the petitioner though old but is a tough lady
having 18 cases pending against her. As per the allegations she is
an active player in the commission of the crime.
6. As far as the question as to whether the complainant was
present at the spot or not and his reliance upon Google Map in
order to doubt the presence of the eye witness at the spot all are
matter of trial.
7. Keeping in view the allegations and seriousness of the
offence, no grounds are made out for grant of bail. Dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 19, 2020/ib
