Uttarakhand High Court
Suman & Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 September, 2025
Order Reserved On : 04.09.2025
Order Pronounced On: 23.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Bail Application (IA No.1/2023)
IN
Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2023
Suman & Another --Applicants/Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State
--------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Sri Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants
submits that at present he is pressing the bail
application of the first applicant/appellant Smt. Suman
and prays leave to withdraw the bail application of
second applicant/appellant Brij Kishore.
2. In view of the above, bail application is
dismissed as withdrawn qua the second
applicant/appellant Brij Kishore.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants/appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
4. Applicant/appellant Smt. Suman @ Mansa
Madhesiya has filed the present bail application seeking
suspension of sentence of life imprisonment and fine of ₹
5,000/- imposed upon her under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No. 236/2019.
5. The applicant/appellant, along with other
accused persons, was convicted for the death of Harikesh,
the husband of the complainant, Smt. Manju. The
deceased was allegedly attacked by the accused persons
with an iron rod, resulting in fatal injuries.
6. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that a
complaint dated 28.11.2018 was filed by Smt. Manju
(complainant) before the Station In-charge Haldi,
Pantnagar stating that on 27.11.2018 at 11:30 am when
her husband Harikesh who was employed as security
personnel at Pantnagar University was coming home for
lunch then her neighbours Ram Singh S/o Surendra, Brij
Kisore and Suman W/o Brij Kishore caught hold of her
husband from behind and hit him with an iron rod due to
which he became unconscious; her brother-in-law Rakesh
S/o Chaukar Jato tried to save him but the neighbors
attacked him also; her mother-in-law rescued her husband
from where he was referred to Haldwani; his condition is
very serious and he is admitted in ICU and the neighbours
are still threatening to kill him. On the basis of complaint,
FIR No.0218/2018 was registered against the appellants
and co-accused/convict Ram Singh u/s 308 and 352 of
IPC.
7. On the same day i.e. on 28.11.2018 at 17:35
Hrs, PW1 Smt. Manju again submitted a written complaint
at Police Station Pantnagar to the effect that earlier she
had given an application regarding attack on her husband
on 28.11.2018 and his admission at Pantnagar hospital
from where he was referred to Haldwani, however
subsequently, her husband died during treatment on
28/29.11.2018.
8. The matter was investigated and after
completion of investigation charge-sheet no.10/2019
dated 24.02.2019 was filed against the appellants and co-
accused Ram Singh u/s 352, 302 r/w 34 IPC. On
05.12.2019, learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar
framed charges against the accused persons u/s 302 r/w
34 of IPC. On conclusion of trial, learned II Additional
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, vide
judgment and order dated 16.06.2023, convicted the
appellants and co-accused Ram Singh u/s 302 r/w 34 of
IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with fine of ₹ 5,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant no.1
submits that there are inherent contradictions in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with
regard to the role played by the applicant/appellant no.1
in the incident. It is submitted that while co-accused Ram
Singh is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with an
iron rod, the applicant/appellant no.1 herein has only been
assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased.
10. He further submits that the applicant/appellant
Smt. Suman was four months pregnant at the time of
incident and she gave birth to a child in jail, besides this,
she was also having a child of more than one year at the
time of alleged incident. He further submits that the
applicant/appellant no.1 Smt. Suman is languishing in jail,
along with her infant, since 29.11.2018, for a period of 6
years and 10 months, and she has no criminal history.
11. PW1 Smt. Manju Yadav, who is the wife of the
deceased, in her statement, stated that the
appellant/applicant Smt. Suman was abusing her and her
mother-in-law and when her husband tried to intervene
then Ram Singh, Brij Kishore and Suman all three hit her
husband with an iron rod. She further stated that co-
accused Ram Singh hit her husband with an iron rod and
all three accused caught hold of her husband. This
witness, in her cross-examination, admitted that the
appellant Suman was pregnant at the time of incident and
was also having a child of more than one year.
12. PW2 Smt. Meena, mother of the deceased, in
her statement stated that the appellant Suman and two
other accused persons caught hold of her son and the
accused Ram Singh hit at the back side of the head of her
son with an iron rod.
13. PW3 Rakesh Yadav, who is the brother of the
deceased, stated that he got a phone call from PW1 Manju
who told him that the appellant Suman and two other
accused have hit his brother with an iron rod but this
witness in subsequent paragraph states that Suman and
Brij Kishore caught hold of his brother and Ram Singh hit
with iron rod. He further stated that when he reached at
the spot then he saw his brother lying down on the ground
with blood oozing out from his head and all the three
accused were standing there and when he tried to put up
his brother then he was also hit by these three persons.
14. PW6 Dr. Ila Singhal who treated the inured at
the hospital situated at G.B. Pant University deposed in
her statement that the injured was brought to the hospital
on 27.11.2018 at 12.36 Hrs and he was having injury on
his head and was bleeding. In cross-examination, this
witness stated that the injury on the head was a deep cut
wound and there is a high probability that wound has been
caused by a sharp weapon and it is not possible that it
would have been caused by a solid object. She further
stated that wound on the head was crescent shaped and
could have been caused by a weapon of the same
curvature.
15. Prima facie, the statement of the prosecution
witnesses, referred to above, depicts inherent
contradictions in their statements. PW1 Smt. Manju, PW2
Smt. Meena and PW3 Rakesh Yadav on one hand have
assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased to the
applicant/appellant no.1 Suman while on the other hand
they have stated that all the three accused hit the
deceased by iron rod.
16. That apart, PW1 in her cross-examination
stated that the appellant Suman was pregnant at the time
of incident and was also having a child of more than one
year. PW2 in her cross-examination also admits that
earlier to the said incident appellant/applicant no.1 Suman
had given a complaint against her family at Haldi Police
Chowki and she does not know what happened to the said
complaint. Furthermore, the medical evidence also
suggests that the injury was a sharp cut wound, which
prima facie raises doubts about the alleged use of an iron
rod causing the injury.
17. Besides above, one very crucial factor is that
the appellant Suman who was pregnant at the time of
incident and was having baby of one year, in our prima
facie opinion, could not have caught hold of the deceased,
who was 28 years of the age and was working as a
security personnel on the relevant date. It is also not
disputed that the appellant Suman had given birth to a
baby in the jail premises and she along with her child are
in jail since 29.11.2018.
18. Considering these special circumstances,
particularly the first appellant's status as a mother of an
infant and a child, prolonged incarceration, and the prima
facie doubts about her active involvement in the incident
during the time of pregnancy, the Court deems it
appropriate to grant bail to Smt. Suman on humanitarian
grounds.
19. In that view, the bail application (IA No.1 of
2023) is allowed qua the applicant/appellant no.1.
Accordingly, the sentence imposed under the judgment
and order dated 16.06.2023 in Sessions Trial No.236 of
2019 hereby stands suspended. The appellant/applicant
Smt. Suman is directed to be enlarged on bail forthwith, if
not required in any other case, subject to appellant
furnishing a bond for a sum of ₹10,000/- and furnishing
one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate.
20. List for hearing in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 23.09.2025
Rajni
