Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 2337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Preeti Jain - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln No. 1104 of 2021; Crl M A No. 5354 of 2021; Crl M (B) No. 362 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2021
L.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, Ajay Chander, Advocate, Tanya Panwar, Advocate, Amit Chadha, Advocate
The gravity of the allegations, electronic evidence, and the key role of the petitioner in a murder conspiracy influenced the court's decision to deny bail.
Headnote:
Regular Bail - Murder Conspiracy - IPC 302/34/120B - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - [IPC 302, IPC 34, IPC 120B, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012] - The court discussed the serious allegations against the petitioner, electronic evidence, recoveries made, and the key role of the petitioner in hatching a conspiracy to eliminate her husband. The court found that the petitioner is the key conspirator and denied bail based on the gravity of the allegations and evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail on humanitarian grounds, claiming innocence and false implication. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's family situation and alleged harassment by relatives. The state opposed the petition, presenting evidence of the petitioner's involvement in a murder conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the allegations against the petitioner to be serious and supported by electronic evidence, recoveries, and disclosure statements of co-accused. The court concluded that the petitioner was the key conspirator in the murder conspiracy and denied bail.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail given the serious allegations of murder conspiracy and the evidence presented by the state.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the gravity of the allegations, electronic evidence, recoveries made, and the petitioner's key role in hatching a conspiracy to eliminate her husband.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and denied bail to the petitioner without commenting on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Petitioner is in custody in FIR No. 329/2019, under Section 302/34/120B IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi since 03.05.2019. By this petition, she is seeking regular bail on the ground that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking regular bail purely on humanitarian grounds, as there is no one to take care of her three minor children, aged 13 years, 09 years and 06 years. It is submitted that after petitioner s arrest, one of her daughter became a victim of sexual harassment, in relation to which FIR No. 460/2020, under Section 354A IPC r/w Section 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered at police station New Usmanpur, Distt. North East, Delhi. It is further submitted that another daughter of petitioner is suffering from brain injury, as one of the bone in her brain is cracked and she is under continuous treatment and is presently in the custody of Anju Jain, her sister-in-law (nanad) and Manoj Jain, brother-in-law (nandoi), who are not taking her for a regular consultation and treatment.
5. Learned counsel submits that after petitioner s arrest, Anju Jain and Manoj Jain have filed a suit for partition with respect to house of petitioner, which is in the name of petitioner s husband (since deceased) against the interests of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was running a play school in the said property/house and a complaint against Anju Jain and Manoj Jain, who are in possession of the said property, has been filed by the petitioner for misappropriation of jewellery articles and cash worth Rs.22 Lacs.
6. Learned counsel further submits that three minor children of petitioner are in the custody of Anju Jain and Manoj Jain and they are being mentally and physically harassed by them and are being deprived of their basic needs and education. Learned counsel relied upon decision dated 06.10.2020 of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. A.194/2019, titled as Kajal Vs. State, in support of petitioner s case.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present petition by submitting that the petitioner is the main conspirator, who had hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Rahul Jain and Vijay Kumar to kill her husband.
8. Further submitted that petitioner, who was in illicit relationship with Rahul Jain, hatched a conspiracy to kill her husband Subodh Jain. Rahul Jain gave the contract of murder to his friend Vijay Kumar, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, Haryana on Rs.1.50 Lacs. They all met on 29.04.2019 at McDonalds. Rahul Jain gave 10 sleeping pills to petitioner and told her to mix these in the lunch of her husband. Petitioner gave key of the main gate of her house to accused Vijay. On 01.05.2019, petitioner mixed the sleeping pills in the lunch of her husband and went to her in-law s home with her kids and informed Rahul Jain that she had done her work. Rahul Jain, sent her associate Vijay to kill Subodh Jain. As per their plan, Vijay reached at the house and strangulated Subodh while he was sleeping.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submitted that accused Rahul Jain was arrested on 02.05.2019. Key of the house of petitioner, which was returned by Vijay to Rahul at the time of receiving of contract killing money and two mobile phones used for chatting with Preeti Jain, were recovered from his possession. On his disclosure, accused Vijay was arrested and one laptop, mobile of deceased Subodh Jain, remaining cash of Rs.22,000/- out of contract killing amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, rope and gloves used for strangulating the deceased, were recovered at his instance.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submitted that one mobile phone, which was used by pet
