Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25863 of 2021 Applicant :- Premwati Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdev Singh,Chandra Bhusan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Premwati seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Goverdhan, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the prosecution story that the applicant was the person who had checked in with the deceased in a hotel where the dead body of the deceased was found in a room, is not true. It is argued that there is no evidence to show that the applicant had checked in the room with the applicant as there is no CCTV footage to the said effect. It is argued that there is no evidence in the present matter to implicate the applicant and the only evidence against her is of her confession to the police. It is argued that the mobile phone of the applicant of which the number is shown to have been recorded in the records at the place of stay was put in surveillance and its location was found in Rajasthan as such the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. It is further argued that it is alleged by the prosecution that on 18.12.2020 a recovery has been affected on the pointing out of the applicant being of a torn towel and some other articles and even a broken mobile phone. It is argued that the said recovery is from an open place being lying somewhere in the stones and bricks near the bus stand and as such is from an open place. It is argued that the said recovery is false and fabricated. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit under Section 437 Cr.P.C. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.12.2020.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the register of the hotel, copy of which is annexed at page 54 and is annexure 10 to the affidavit shows that on 15.12.2020 a room was booked in the name of the applicant and she along with one other male member checked in the room at 5:00 PM. It is argued that the incident in the present matter has taken place in the night of 15/16.12.2020 and in the morning, the applicant has been seen to be moving out of the room. It is argued that the postmortem report of the deceased shows that there is a ligature mark present on his body which is continuous mark without any break. It is further argued that even there is a multiple abrasion on the left forearm which would go to show that there had been a struggle. The doctor has opined the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of antimortem injury. It is argued that tongue of the deceased was protruded out. It is further argued that the applicant was in the room along with the deceased from 15.12.2020 till morning of 16.12.2020 and in between the incident has taken place in the night of 15/16.12.2020 which also corresponds with the time since death as given in the postmortem report. It is argued that the applicant is under a duty to discharge her burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and also under Section 8 of the Evidence Act which she has not. It is further argued that the applicant was in the company of the deceased in the room in hotel and the deceased died in the said room which was occupied by the deceased and the applicant. It is further argued that there is a recovery of incriminating material on the pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, it is apparent that the applicant and the deceased checked in the room of the hotel some hours prior to the death of the deceased, the applicant on the next morning left the said place. She was in the hotel with the deceased. There is no plausible explanation coming from her side regarding the death while she was in the room. Even the postmortem report shows struggle by the deceased. There is a recovery on the pointing out of the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)