Karnataka High Court

Smt. Indu Chauhan @ Indu vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2025

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                                   CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025

                                       BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4522 OF 2025
                              (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
               BETWEEN:

               SMT. INDU CHAUHAN @ INDU
               W/O LATE DEVENDER SINGH,
               AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
               EARLIER R/OF FLAT NO.2503,
               HIRA NANDINI TOWERS,
               O.M.R.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 119.
               PERMANENT R/OF KOGI VILLAGE,
               NALDERA (279), SIMLA,
               HIMACHAL PRADESH-171 007.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE)
               AND:
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
High Court     AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
of Karnataka   BENGALURU CITY,
               HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
               BENGALURU-560 001.
               REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT,
               BENGALURU-01.
                                                           ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V.G., SPL. PP)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                    CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.483
BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR
BAIL,   IN  CRIME    NO.18/2021   REGISTERED    BY   THE
AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY AND THE
CHARGE SHEET HAS BEEN FILED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 364, 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED AS SESSIONS CASE IN
S.C.NO.877/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-63).

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.04.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

                       CAV ORDER

     This successive bail petition is preferred under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner-

accused No.3 on bail in S.C.No.877/2021 pending on the

file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at

Bengaluru City, arising out of Cr.No.18/2021 registered at

Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City.


     2.   Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent -

State and perused the material on record.
                                   -3-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                             CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




      3.      Petitioner had earlier approached this Court for

similar relief.        Crl.P.No.9775/2022 was dismissed on

merits vide order dated 20.4.2023.                 Thereafter, the

petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12281/2023.             The Hon'ble Apex

Court      dismissed    the   said   petition   vide   order   dated

4.12.2023, permitting the petitioner to renew her request

if the trial did not commence within a period of six

months, provided that the petitioner participates actively

in the expeditious trial.


      4.      Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner once again approached

the     learned        Sessions      Judge      seeking   bail    in

Crl.Misc.No.1964/2025.         The said petition was dismissed

vide order dated 18.3.2024.


      5.      This Court while dismissing the bail petition in

Crl.P.No.9775/2022 has considered the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, hence, facts in detail need not

be adverted to. However, the relevant facts which may be
                                -4-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                              CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as

under:


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

informant by     name    C.R.Devender             Singh.       Deceased

Siddarath Devender Singh is first informant's son born to

his first wife. One Dr.Anjali Geetha, first informant's sister

and her husband Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW6) were

issueless.   They owned valuable immovable properties.

After the death of his wife, Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla was

looking after the properties.          Petitioner was under the

impression    that,    the   entire         property   belonging      to

Dr.Vishnu    Shankar    Shukla       will    be    inherited    by   the

deceased and her children will not get the property.

Hence, she hatched a conspiracy with accused No.1, with

whom she had an acquaintance and assured payment of

supari of Rs.4 lakhs to eliminate the deceased.                 In turn,

accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4.                      In

furtherance of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1, 2

and 4 kidnapped the deceased in a Swift Desire Car
                               -5-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                     CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




bearing registration No.AP 03-CB-4034 on the night

intervening 18/19.1.2021 and took him towards Andhra

Pradesh. On the way, accused Nos.1 and 4 committed his

murder by strangulating with the seat belt and buried the

dead body in a forest area.


     6.     Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4

for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B,

364 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is no more.        Accused

Nos.2 to 4 are facing trial before the Court of learned LXII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City

(CCH-63).


     7.     The contention of the learned counsel for

petitioner is as under:


     i.     Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence.

She has been falsely implicated, only on the basis of

confession statement of the co-accused, which has no

evidentiary value and cannot be treated as substantive

evidence.
                               -6-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                       CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




     ii.    According   to   the    prosecution,      motive     is

attributed to the petitioner alleging that she wanted to

knock off the properties of CW6- Dr.Vishnu Shankar

Shukla, whereas the said witness examined as PW6 has

not supported the said version of the prosecution.


     iii.   The   material   witnesses    including    the     first

informant/CW1 examined as PW5 has turned hostile and

not supported the case of prosecution.


     iv.    There are no eye witnesses and the entire case

of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There

are no acceptable material to show the complicity of the

petitioner in the alleged crime.    Suspicion however grave

will not take the place of proof.


     v.     PWs.1 to 4 are hearsay witnesses.                Their

evidence do not incriminate the petitioner in any manner.


     vi.    Petitioner is a woman.       She was arrested on

2.2.2021 and languishing in custody since then.         She has
                               -7-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                        CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




two minor children, who are now under the custody of her

relatives.


     vii.    There are 88 witnesses cited in the charge

sheet. As of now, only 11 witnesses are examined. The

conclusion of the trial will take a considerable period.


     viii. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any

conditions and she will offer sufficient surety to ensure her

regular presence before the trial Court.


     8.      The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on

plethora of judgments in support of his contention seeking

to enlarge the petitioner on bail.


     9.      Learned Special Prosecutor has filed statement

of objections opposing the prayer for bail.           He has

contended that this is a successive bail petition, wherein

earlier petitions seeking bail are rejected by this Court and

by the Hon'ble Apex Court.          The charge sheet material

indicates that there is more than reasonable grounds to

believe that the petitioner arraigned as accused No.3 has
                                    -8-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                             CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




committed the alleged offence. There are calls and

messages exchanged between the petitioner and other

accused. Petitioner is the main conspirator and motive is

also attributed against her.              She is not a permanent

resident of Bengaluru and therefore, there is every chance

of flight risk.      Further, there is every apprehension that

she has means to influence the witnesses.


        10.   Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in      the   case     of    X    v.     State   of   Rajasthan     in

SLP (Crl.) No.13378/2024 disposed on 27.11.2024, the

learned Special Prosecutor contended that, ordinarily in

serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the

trial    commences,         the   Courts    should    not   loath   in

entertaining the bail application of the accused.


        11.   Relying on a decision in Mamatha Nair v. State

of Rajasthan reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442, he contended

that in case the FIR and charge sheet shows prima facie

case, it is not proper to extend the liberty of bail.
                                   -9-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                          CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




       12.    Relying on a decision in Krishna Kant v. State of

U.P.         (Crl.Misc.Bail      Application       No.33329/2020

DD.16.12.2022),        he     contended   that    hostility   of   the

witnesses cannot be a new ground for granting bail. The

learned Special prosecutor would also contend that there

are no special or changed circumstances to consider the

bail petition.     He has accordingly sought to dismiss the

petition.


       13.    The nature of allegations and material against

the petitioner was considered by this Court in the previous

bail petition, which was dismissed on 20.4.2023.                   The

Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition,

permitted the petitioner to renew her request if the trial

did not commence within a period of six months. The trial

Court has once again dismissed bail petition.


       14.    It is well settled that there is no general bar or

impediment in moving a successive bail application. The

sine qua non for filing such successive bail application is a
                                - 10 -
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                            CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




change in circumstances or substantial change in the facts

and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events.


     15.    It is not in dispute that the trial has now

commenced.         However, out of 88 witnesses cited in the

charge sheet, as of now only 11 witnesses are examined.

Petitioner was arrested on 2.2.2021 and she is in judicial

custody    since     then.   The   entire    case   is   based    on

circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not disputed

the fact that the material witnesses such as CWs.1, 5 and

6, examined as PWs.1, 7 and 6 respectively have not

supported the case. However, hostility of the witnesses by

itself cannot be a ground for granting bail. If any view is

taken on the basis of the evidence of such hostile

witnesses, it amounts to evaluating the evidence by this

Court,    which    is   impermissible   while    deciding   a    bail

application. The appreciation of the evidence shall be left

to the trial Court.
                               - 11 -
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                          CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




     16.   In Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb reported in

AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712, at para-16, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held as under:


           "This   Court   has     clarified   in   numerous
     judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of
     the Constitution would cover within its protective
     ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also
     access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme
     Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial
     Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that
     undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending
     trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse
     consequences of his acts unless the same is
     established before a neutral arbiter. However,
     owing to the practicalities of real life where to
     secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk
     to society in case a potential criminal is left at large
     pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding
     whether an individual ought to be released pending
     trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial
     would not be possible and the accused has suffered
     incarceration for a significant period of time, the
     courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge
     them on bail."
                              - 12 -
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                      CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




     17.   The Hon'ble Apex Court has held on number of

occasions in catena of judgments that an accused is

entitled to a speedy trial which is traceable in Article 21 of

Constitution of India.   If the alleged offence is a serious

one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to

ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. It is

settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a

punishment.    It is also well settled that a Court while

deciding a bail application has to keep in mind the

principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the

accused is likely to appear before the trial Court and other

parameters like gravity of offence, likelihood of accused

repeating the offence and influencing the witnesses.


     18.   In the present case, petitioner has been in

judicial custody since 2.2.2021, i.e., for more than four

years.   It is not to be forgotten that the petitioner is a

woman and entitled to consideration for bail even under

Section 437(1)(ii) of Cr.P.C. (480 (1)(ii) of BNSS, 2023).

The prosecution has not disputed that the petitioner has
                              - 13 -
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:18387
                                         CRL.P No. 4522 of 2025




two minor children who are now under the care and

custody of her relatives.    As already noted, there are 88

prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet, out of

which only 11 witnesses are examined.             Delay is not

attributable to the petitioner. Petitioner has undertaken to

furnish sufficient surety ensuring her regular presence

before the trial Court.     Considering all these facts and

circumstances, by imposing suitable conditions, petitioner

can be admitted to bail. Hence, the following:


                            ORDER

i. Petition is allowed.

ii. Petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.18/2021

of Amruthahalli Police Station, pending in

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

City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, shall be

enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: