Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shilpa @ Shilpi vs State Of Haryana on 11 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
2023:PHHC:118659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-5264-2023
Reserved on: 04.09.2023
Pronounced on: 11.09.2023
Shilpa @ Shilpi
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.28 dated 16.02.2009
registered at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula under Sections 365 IPC
(Sections 302/ 379B/ 404/120B IPC added later on).
2. (i) FIR was lodged on the complaint of Smt. Sushma Mittal on
16.02.2009, as per which her husband Vinod Mittal, who used to work in
finance and property, was dealing with Raju and his wife Shilpa
(present petitioner), residing in AKS Colony, Ashiana Apartment, Zirakpur.
An SX4 car had been sold by Vinod Mittal to Raju, for which payment was
being made by Raju in installments. On 14.02.2009, husband of the
complainant along with her son Yashan Mittal, aged 4 years, had gone in
his Santro Car to the house of Raju to recover the amount, but they did not
return for quite some time. Complainant contacted her husband on his
mobile at about 10.15 p.m. The call was taken by her husband and she
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
CRM-M-5264-2023 2023:PHHC:118659
(complainant) heard the sounds of abuses and somebody saying 'maro
maro'. Complainant further heard shrieks of her husband but could not
communicate with him. Later on, she repeatedly tried to call her husband,
but the call was not taken. She along with her neighbor and her brother-in-
law Mukesh Mittal went to the house of the petitioner, where husband of
the petitioner Raju was not found. Petitioner Shilpa was present, who
informed that husband of the complainant had come there at about
9.00 p.m., but had left on not finding Raju. Complainant then went to police
officials but on making enquiries from the petitioner, she did not give any
satisfactory reply. Complainant then came to the Salon being run by Raju in
Baltana, where cousin brother of Raju disclosed that someone had parked
Raju's car outside the salon a little while ago and had asked him to take
care of the car. Missing report regarding the husband and son of the
complainant was lodged. It was stated by the complainant that she had
come to know that her husband and son had been kidnapped by Raju and
his other companions. FIR No.28 dated 16.02.2009 under Section 365 IPC
was registered.
(ii) During investigation, it was found that husband of the
petitioner in connivance with co-accused Mobin Khan @ Chotu, Sonu Sain,
Ashok Kumar @ Vicky and Sanjay were involved in the missing of the
husband and son of the complainant. Said co-accused Mobin Khan @
Chotu, Sonu Sain and Ashok Kumar @ Vicky were arrested. It was
revealed by all of them that as per the plan made by Raju, the husband of
the petitioner, i.e., Vinod Mittal and his son Yashan had been abducted and
that Vinod Mittal was murdered with a knife and that his dead body along
with Yashan were thrown in a canal flowing in the mid-way of Rajpura at
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
CRM-M-5264-2023 2023:PHHC:118659
Patiala. Yashan was thrown alive. Sections 302/201/216/120B IPC were
added. Santro car used in the incident was recovered from the possession of
co-accused. Blood samples were collected from the said car, which matched
with the DNA of Sh. Ved Prakash, father of the deceased husband of the
complainant. Hair samples of the co-accused were taken, which were also
found to have matched with the hair sample collected from the recovered
vehicle. Despite all possible efforts, Raju and his wife-petitioner could not
be arrested, as they were found to have absconded. Challan against the
other co-accused was filed.
(iii) Police report further reveals that petitioner and her husband
Raju had been absconding from the last 13 years. They were declared
proclaimed offender by ld. JMIC, Panchkula on 09.12.2009. Even reward of
`50,000/- each was announced in order to arrest them. On secret
information, Police came to know that petitioner and her husband were
residing in Madhya Pradesh by changing their names and identity. They
were arrested on 16.07.2022 after a long period of 13 years. Their
disclosure statements were recorded and based thereon, Sections 379B and
404 IPC were also added. Gold kada, ring and a purse containing cash
besides some cards taken from the body of the deceased Vinod Mittal after
his death, were also recovered from Raju. It was confessed by him that
Yashan Mittal was thrown alive in the canal along with the dead body of
the deceased Vinod Mittal. It was further disclosed that petitioner Shilpa in
connivance with her husband had chalked out the plan so as to wipe out
Vinod Mittal and had further suggested her husband to kill the minor child
Yashan Mittal, otherwise he would give evidence against the petitioner and
her husband Raju.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
CRM-M-5264-2023 2023:PHHC:118659
3. It is submitted by ld. counsel on behalf of the petitioner that
co-accused Sanjay, Ashok Kumar @ Vicky and Sonu Sain were convicted
by the Court of ld. ASJ, Panchkula on 08.05.2010, but separate criminal
appeals filed by these co-accused were allowed by a Division Bench of this
Court on 11.11.2016, thus acquitting said co-accused Ashok Kumar@
Vicky, Sonu Sain and Sanjay. It is contended further that petitioner has no
role to play in the crime. As per the allegations in the FIR, when
complainant came to the house of the petitioner, she was present there,
though her husband was not available. It is contended that on the next date
i.e., 15.02.2009, Raju took his wife i.e., petitioner along with minor
daughter and mother-in-law to Vadodara (Gujarat). Being wife, petitioner
accompanied her husband without having any knowledge regarding any
incident. She also gave birth to another daughter and presently, she is
having two minor daughters. Ld. counsel contends further that husband of
the petitioner is also in custody and that her two minor daughters are
presently living with the parents of the petitioner, who are suffering from
various ailments and not in a position to take care of them. Ld. counsel
contends that trial may take long time to conclude and that in all these
circumstances, petitioner be allowed regular bail.
4. Strongly opposing the bail petition, ld. State counsel submits
that petitioner along with her husband were absconding for the last 13 years
and were declared proclaimed offender. They were arrested with a great
difficulty and in case petitioner is released on bail, she may again abscond
and trial may not conclude. Ld. State counsel has further drawn attention
towards concluding part of the judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court, whereby co-accused Ashok Kumar @ Vicky,
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
CRM-M-5264-2023 2023:PHHC:118659
Sonu Sain and Sanjay were acquitted, so as to contend that "nothing stated
or observed in the said judgment is to be taken as an expression ofs opinion
on merits of the case against absconding accused Raju and Shilpa". Ld.
State counsel submits that in view of the said clear observations, petitioner
cannot be allowed to take benefit out of the acquittal of the co-accused. Ld.
State counsel further submits that petitioner was part of conspiracy with her
husband and it is at her suggestion that Yashan Mittal, a child of just 4
years of age, was thrown alive in the canal. Ld. State counsel has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
5. I have considered submissions of both sides and have
appraised the record.
6. Though the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2022 in the
present case, as per the custody certificate placed on record by the
respondent/State, but Court cannot ignore the fact that she along with her
husband i.e., co-accused Raju kept concealing themselves for more than 13
years and had to be declared proclaimed offender. The complainant i.e.,
wife of deceased Vinod Mittal had visited the house of petitioner on the
night of 14.02.2009 itself, where the petitioner could not give satisfactory
reply about her husband, who was found absent even from his saloon, so
petitioner cannot be believed at this stage that she was not aware about any
incident and left for Vadodara (Gujarat) with her husband just on his asking
on 15.02.2009.
7. I agree with the contentions of ld. State counsel that in case
petitioner is allowed bail, she may again abscond and trial may not come to
an end. Role of the petitioner is yet to be established during trial on the
basis of evidence to be led by the prosecution. Petitioner cannot be allowed
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
CRM-M-5264-2023 2023:PHHC:118659
to take benefit of the judgment qua the co-accused, whereby, they have
been acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court, as it has been clearly
stated in the judgment dated 11.11.2016 that nothing observed therein is to
be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case against
absconding accused-Raju and Shilpa.
8. Having regard to all the above facts and circumstances, but
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court finds the
present case to be unfit for grant of regular bail.
Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
11.09.2023
Vivek
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118659
6 of 6
