Indu Chauhan @ Indu vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2292 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                   CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022



                                                                            R
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9775 OF 2022
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   INDU CHAUHAN @ INDU
                      W/O. DEVENDRA SINGH,
                      36 YEARS,
                      R/AT FLAT NO.2503,
                      HIRA NANDINI TOWERS,
                      OMR ROAD,
                      CHENNAI-600 119.

                                                             ...PETITIONER


                 (BY SRI.B.V.ACHARYA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally
signed by              SRI. R.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
LAKSHMI T
Location: High
Court of         AND:
Karnataka        1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                      AMRUTHHALLI P.S.,
                      BANGALORE.
                      HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
                      BENGALURU-560 001.
                      (REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)



                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                 (BY SRI.BHANUPRAKASH V.G., SPL. PP)
                             -2-
                                     CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING       TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.877/2021
(CR.NO.18/2021) OF AMRUTHAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364, 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JDUGE, BENGLAURU.
     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER,      THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER        : 05.04.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER: 20.04.2023

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by

accused No.3 to enlarge her on bail in Crime No.18/2021

of Amruthahalli Police Station, now pending in S.C.

No.877/2021 on the file of the Court of LXII Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. Charge-sheet has been filed against accused

No.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,

120B, 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri

B.V.Acharya for Sri R.P.Chandrashekhar appearing for

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri

Bhanuprakash V.G. appearing for respondent-State.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case:- Deceased

Siddarth Devender Singh is the son of the first informant,

from his first wife. The petitioner/accused No.3 is the

second wife of the first informant. She has two minor

children. First informant's sister Dr.Anjali Geetha and her

husband Dr. Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW.6) have no

children. They owned valuable immovable properties in

Bengaluru. After the death of his wife, Dr. Vishnu Shankar

Shukla was looking after the properties. Thinking that the

entire property will be inherited by the deceased, and her

children will not get the property, the petitioner hatched a

plan to eliminate Siddarth Devender Singh. She entered

into a conspiracy with accused No.1, with whom she had

an acquaintance and in turn the said accused conspired

with accused Nos.2 and 4. The petitioner assured

payment of Supari of Rs.4,00,000/- to them for

eliminating Siddarth Devender Singh. In furtherance of the

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

conspiracy held, the petitioner came and stayed in flat

No.402 of Coleman Stay Abode Apartment, situated at

Bhuvaneshwari, Dasarahalli, Bangalore, where the

deceased was staying. She secured other accused persons

to the said Apartment on the night intervening 18-

19.01.2021. Accused No.2 remained in the Swift Desire

Car bearing Registration No.AP-03-CB-4034 and accused

Nos.1 and 4 entered the apartment. They made the

deceased to consume liquor and as per the plan hatched

by them, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 took the deceased in

their car towards Kolar, wherein accused No.4 got down

from the car. Accused No.1 and accused No.2 took the

deceased towards Andhra Pradesh. On the way, they

strangulated him with the help of seatbelt of the car. After

committing the murder, they drove towards Nellore and

buried the dead body in a forest area. Accused No.4, who

had got down from the car, returned to the Apartment and

handed over the mobile phone and wallet of the deceased

to the petitioner/accused No.3.

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

5. C.R.Devender Singh, father of the deceased

lodged a missing complaint at Amruthahalli Police Station

on 25.01.2021, regarding missing of his son Siddarth

Devender Singh, which came to be registered in

Cr.No.15/2021. On 30.01.2021, after coming to know

from the security guard of the apartment that his son was

forcibly taken in a car by two unknown persons, he lodged

a complaint against unknown persons which came to be

registered in Cr.No.18/2021 of Amruthahalli Police Station

for offence punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of

IPC. Investigation revealed that accused No.2 took

treatment in a hospital in Andhra Pradesh for some

injuries sustained by him. It was also revealed that

accused No.1 had committed suicide on 29.01.2021.

Accused No.2 was arrested on 30.01.2021 and his

voluntary statement was recorded. The Investigating

Agency collected the CCTV footages, call records etc.

6. On 02.02.2021, accused No.2, led the police

and others to the place where the dead body was buried

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

and it was exhumed. Petitioner/accused No.3 came to be

arrested on 02.02.2021 and her voluntary statement was

recorded.

7. It is vehemently contended by the learned

Senior counsel that the petitioner is innocent and she has

been falsely implicated. The motive alleged against her

for commission of the offence is absurd and unacceptable.

Except the voluntary statement, there are no other

concrete material collected against the petitioner to show

her complicity in the commission of the offence. There is

no incriminating material recovered at her instance and

the story of payment of Supari etc., is without any basis.

There is no iota of evidence to show that she had sent any

message from the mobile phone of the deceased after he

was found missing.

8. The learned Senior counsel has further

contended that the petitioner is in custody for more than

two years. She being a woman is entitled for bail,

particularly, in a case of circumstantial evidence where

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

generally bail is granted. Reliance was placed on

a decision rendered in Crl.P.No.2306/2022 of this Court

disposed on 12.05.2022, in which a reference was made

to a decision of a coordinate bench in case of Kavitha vs.

State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No. 2509/2019 decided on

05.08.2019, wherein this Court granted bail to a woman

accused of committing an offence punishable under

sections 302, 120B r/w 34 of IPC laying emphasis on

Section 437 of Cr.P.C. and also relying on the judgment of

a coordinate bench, wherein it is held that even if the

Court comes to the conclusion that a strong prima facie

case is made out against a woman, still the court can

exercise its discretion and it may enlarge a lady on bail

with conditions.

9. The learned Senior counsel would also rely on a

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balkrishna

Tukaram Angre vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2017 SCC online SC 2093, where in a case of

circumstantial evidence, considering that the accused has

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

been in custody for 15 months, the Apex Court released

him on bail.

10. The learned Senior counsel has also relied on a

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Seema Singh

vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another

reported in (2018) 16 SCC 10 to contend that even if the

offence charged is serious one, that by itself cannot be the

ground to outrightly deny the benefit of bail, if there are

other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail.

It is contended that the burden is upon the prosecution to

establish the guilt of the petitioner and that she was part

of a conspiracy. In support of the said contention reliance

is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC

784. Reliance was also placed on the orders passed by

the coordinate Benches wherein bail was granted to a

woman accused.

11. The learned Senior counsel has also relied on a

decision in Bhagirathsinh vs. State of Gujarat reported

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

in (1984) 1 SCC 284 to contend that even where a prime

case is established the approach of the Court in the matter

of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way

of punishment, but to see whether the presence of the

accused will be readily available for trial or that he is likely

to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering

with evidence.

12. Per contra, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor having filed the statement of objections would

contend that this is a case wherein, the petitioner, a prime

accused with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4 committed the

murder of first informant's son for property and there are

sufficient material collected showing her complicity in the

crime. He contends that the petitioner was having close

acquaintance with accused No.1 and he assured payment

of supari of Rs.4 lakhs to execute the plan and there are

materials to show that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was

transferred on three occasions to the accused. He

contends that as per the plan hatched by all the accused,

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have gone to the apartment where

the deceased was staying and kidnapped him in their car

and took him towards Andhra Pradesh and on the way he

was strangulated with the seatbelt of the car and

murdered. He contends that there are call detail records

collected by the Investigating Agency to show that there

were multiple calls and messages exchanged between

accused No.1 and the petitioner herein. He contends that

the petitioner has also asked other accused to handover

the mobile phone and wallet of the deceased and after

receiving the same from accused No.4 she has sent

messages to the mother of the deceased to mislead the

complainant and others. He contends that there are

recordings of close circuit camera installed at the

residential apartment of the deceased, clearly showing

that on the intervening night of 18-19.01.2021 accused

Nos.1 and 2 had entered into the residential apartment of

the deceased, when this petitioner was very much present,

and kidnapped the deceased in the car in which accused

No.2 was waiting. He further contends that after

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

committing the murder, at the instance of the petitioner

the luggage and laptop of the deceased was taken away

by accused No.2 from the apartment. He therefore

contends that the involvement of the petitioner along with

other accused is evident and writ large. He contends, the

petitioner being the prime accused is capable of tampering

the prosecution witnesses and there is also flight risk as

she claims to be having business in Shimla and

temporarily residing in Chennai. He contends that when

serious charges like the one are made, the petitioner is not

entitled for bail merely on the ground that she is a woman

or she has been lodged in the prison.

13. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor has

further contended that the learned Sessions Judge having

considered the serious nature of the allegation and prima

facie material collected against the petitioner has rejected

her bail petitions twice and even before this Court this is a

successive bail petition. He has placed reliance on a

decision reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442 in the case of

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

Mamta Nair vs. State of Rajasthan and another,

wherein bail was denied to a woman accused of

committing an offence punishable under Section 302, 452

and 120B of IPC. Reliance is also placed on other

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He therefore, seeks

to reject the petition.

14. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that

initially at the crime stage the petitioner had preferred

criminal petition No.2482/2021 before this Court and the

said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

22.06.2021 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach

the Sessions Court in view of filing of the charge-sheet.

After dismissal of her petition filed before the learned

Sessions Court, petitioner approached this Court in

Criminal Petition No.5427/2021. The said petition was

disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2022 permitting the

petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Sessions Court,

keeping open all the contentions. Thereafter once again

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

the Sessions Court has rejected the prayer for bail vide

order dated 17.09.2022.

15. The case of the prosecution is that the

petitioner/accused No.3 is the second wife of first

informant-C.R.Devender Singh. Deceased Siddarth Singh

is the son of the first informant born to his first wife

namely Smt. Mala Singh, (CW.2). The first informant's

sister one Dr. Anjali Geetha and her husband Dr. Vishnu

Shankar Shukla (CW.6) owned valuable immovable

properties in Bengaluru and they had no issues. As per the

statement of objections filed by the prosecution the

deceased was initially residing in U.S.A and after his return

from U.S.A, the first informant was not responding to the

financial needs of the petitioner and being issueless,

CW.6-Vishna Shankar Shukla who was very close to his

nephew Siddarth Singh had a plan to inherit his properties

worth several crores in his name. Thinking that her

children would not get any share in the property, the

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

petitioner hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased by

giving supari to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

16. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai

Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and another reported in

(2021) 6 SCC 230, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

reinstated that while deciding an application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits

would not be necessary since the criminal trial is still to

take place. The duty to record reasons is significance

Safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is

entrusted to the Court is exercised in a judicious manner.

The Court dealing with the bail application should be

satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but

exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not

necessary. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

"38. x x x x x It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether ball should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C would not launch

- 15 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. x x x x x".

39. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution- is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons

- 16 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non- application of mind. This Court observed:

(SCC p.527, para.8)

8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's orders shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course."

17. It is also useful to refer to the relevant para in

the decision rendered in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of

- 17 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

Delhi and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 which is

extracted hereunder:

"The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge."

- 18 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

18. In the case on hand, the motive is attributed

against the petitioner. A perusal of the charge-sheet

material would prima facie show that CW.6 namely

Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla and his deceased wife, who is

none other than the sister of first informant were issueless

and they had valuable immovable properties in Bengaluru.

Statement of CW.6 would reveal, when he was requested

by the first informant for executing a GPA in his name, he

had told him that he would discuss with deceased about

the same and even the petitioner herein had discussed

with him. The prosecution has placed prima facie material

to show that the deceased was staying in one Coleman

Stay Abode Apartment in Bengaluru and the petitioner

herein who was usually staying in Chennai along with her

children had come to the said apartment prior to the date

of incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place on

the intervening night of 18-19.01.2021. The statement of

the security guard (CW.5) shows that on the said night the

deceased was taken by other accused persons in a car.

The prosecution has collected CC TV footages as well as

- 19 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

the call detail records to show the acquaintance of accused

No.1 and the petitioner herein as well as the payment of

Rs.25,000/- through the sister of the petitioner. Further

cash of Rs.25,000/- on two occasions on 19.01.2021 and

another sum of Rs.25,000/- on 20.01.2021 was

transferred to CW.40, sister of accused No.2. Statement of

CW.2 namely Mala Singh, mother of deceased shows that

even after the murder of her son on 19.01.2021, she

received whatsapp messages from his mobile phone from

20.01.2021 till 24.01.2021. The mobile phone was said to

be collected by the petitioner herein from accused No.4

after the murder was committed and the petitioner herein

has misled everyone by sending messages to CW.2 in

order to show that the deceased is still alive. The material

collected by the prosecution prima facie disclose that the

petitioner was in constant touch with accused Nos.1 and 2

even prior to the incident and even on the date of incident.

The C.C. TV Footages collected by the prosecution shows

that after the commission of the murder the luggage

belonging to the deceased was taken from the apartment

- 20 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

by accused No.4. The missing complaint lodged on

25.01.2021 itself shows that there was a message sent by

the deceased on 23rd and 24.01.2021 stating that he is

travelling to U.S.A etc when by that time the deceased

was no more and he was murdered on 19.01.2021 itself.

19. The material collected by the prosecution prima

facie show that the petitioner was very much present in

the apartment from where the deceased was kidnapped by

other accused persons on the night intervening 18/19-01-

2021. Even when the missing complaint was filed on

25.01.2021 and a complaint was lodged by CW.1, father of

the deceased on 30.01.2021 and registration of a case

under Section 363 r/w 34 of IPC, petitioner has not

informed the matter to the informant or any others. The

materials prima facie show the complicity of the petitioner

who is the main conspirator in the alleged crime.

20. Merely because the petitioner is a woman, that

itself is not a ground to enlarge her on bail particularly

when she is arraigned as the main conspirator at whose

- 21 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

instance the crime is committed. A prima facie case is

made out against the petitioner for a heinous offence

committed by her. Petitioner has hatched the plan to

commit murder and she is instrumental in executing the

same. In such a circumstance Section 437 of Cr.P.C. does

not give any absolute right to enlarge the petitioner on

bail. The prosecution apprehends that there is a flight risk

in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail as she is not a

resident of Bengaluru and does not have a permanent

residential address. Most of the witnesses are either

related or known to the petitioner. Hence, influencing or

tampering the prosecution witnesses is also not ruled out.

The offence alleged being one punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, the period of incarceration

undergone by the petitioner itself is not a ground at this

stage to enlarge her on bail. The facts and circumstances

of each case has to be weighed before exercising the

judicial discretion to grant or refuse bail. Considering the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this

- 22 -

CRL.P No. 9775 of 2022

Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

Petition is dismissed.

Observations made in this order is confined to the

disposal of this petition and shall not influence the trial of

the case in any manner.

SD/-

JUDGE

HB