Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
Jashima Khatoon – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 461 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2021
BAIL - Offences under Sections 307/323/506/509 read with Section 34 IPC - Section 439 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving multiple offences including murder. The petitioner's counsel argued that there were material contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his sister, and that there was no motive for the petitioner to commit murder. The state opposed the bail, stating that there were no contradictions in the statements and that the petitioner posed a threat to the complainant's family if released on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements of the complainant and his sister were consistent and lacked material contradictions. It noted the severity of the offences and the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and threat to the complainant. The court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at that juncture, especially considering the nature of the offences and the petitioner's proximity to the victim's family.
Issues: Material contradictions in statements, severity of the offences, threat to the complainant, and the petitioner's gender
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the parameters for granting bail as laid down by the Supreme Court, considering the nature of the accusations, severity of punishment, and the apprehension of evidence tampering and threat to the complainant. It emphasized the lack of inconsistencies in the statements and the seriousness of the offences in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed, and the trial court was requested to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.229/2019, dated 12.05.2019, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 307/323/506/509 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. On a complaint from Anmol Tyagi stating that on 11/12.05.2019 his father Dhruv Raj Tyagi had taken his sister Nillika to Acharya Shri Bikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, since she was not feeling well. It is stated that on the way back his sister told his father that she was teased by one Raja. The complaint States that after dropping her at home the complainant’s father went to the house of Raja. It is stated in the charge-sheet that when Dhruv Raj Tyagi went to the house of Raja, Raja along with his brother Mohammad Shamse Alam @ Duggu started abusing and beating them. The complainant also reached the scene of the occurrence. It is stated that after hearing the commotion Nillika also came to the spot. It is stated that Raja caught hold of the neck of Nillika and started misbehaving with her. It is stated that the petitioner herein, Jashima Khatoon, who is the mother of Raja came down the stairs along with Guddu/son of the petitioner, Rashida Khatoon/daughter of the petitioner and Mohammad Jahangir Alam. It is stated that the petitioner and Rashida caught Nillika from behind. It is stated in the complaint that Guddu had come down with a knife and he gave it to his brother Duggu. Duggu stabbed Dhruv Raj Tyagi multiple times. It is stated that the complainant’s father was taken to the RML hospital, Delhi. FIR No.229/2019, dated 12.05.2019, was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, for offences under Sections 307/323/506/509 read with Section 34 IPC when Dhruv Raj Tyagi passed away Section 302 was added to the FIR.
3. The statements of the complainant and his sister Nillika under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C were recorded and the charge-sheet has been filed.
4. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 14.05.2019. The records indicate that the petitioner had filed an application in the court of Additional Session Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was dismissed by an order dated 23.10.2020.
5. Mr. M.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a lady. He states that the charge-sheet has been filed. He also states that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last one year and eight months. He states that even charges have not been framed and there is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his sister, Nillika given under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. He states that a reading of the statements show that there was no motive for the petitioner to commit murder of the deceased. He states that in view of the material contradictions in the statements, the petitioner being a lady who is in custody for the last 20 months should be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State opposes the bail contending that there are no contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his sister. He states that the two eye witnesses have categorically stated that the petitioner came down from her house along with the accused Guddu and Rashida/the daughter of the petitioner. Guddu was having a knife in his hand. It is stated that the co-accused Guddu gave the knife to his brother Duggu who stabbed the deceased. She would state that the petitioner stays in the same locality as the family of the deceased and therefore bail ought not to be granted.
7. Heard Mr. M.K. Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP appearing for the State and perused the material on record.
8. A perusal of the statements made by the complainant, Anmol Tyagi and his sister, Nillika shows that the statements are consistent with e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
