SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, has been filed by the applicant/accused, under Sec. 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherethrough, she seeks, an order, for hers being released from judicial custody, whereat she is extantly lodged, for, hers allegedly committing an offence, punishable under Sections 302, 201, read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in respect whereof, an FIR No. 56 of 2018, of, 30.4.2018, is, registered with Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) Prior to the institution of the instant bail application before this Court, the latter had instituted an application, cast under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P., and, the latter had, on 10.7.2018, recorded an order, hence dismissing her bail application. However, since then upto now, the prosecution has filed, a, report under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. before the learned Committal Court concerned, and, thereafter, the bail-applicant, has been charged for committing the afore offences, (i) whereupon the afore event hence obviously constitutes a changed circumstance, since, the, rejection of the earlier bail application, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P., upto, the institution of the instant bailapplication before this Court, (ii) whereupon it is hence rendered maintainable.

(3.) The principal accused, inflicted the fatal blows upon the deceased hence purportedly, by, user of stones, and, danda, both whereof stood respectively recovered at his instance, by the Investigating Officer concerned, through respectively drawn memos (i) AND, upon the afore purported recoveries, the prosecution ascribes qua him, the role of his committing an offence, punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the bail-applicant, is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, to, also along with the afore, being an accessory, at, the fact, (ii) submission whereof is rested, upon, the fact, of, hers rather enabling effectuation, of, recovery of the burnt clothes, of the deceased. The alleged occurrence took place, in, the night, intervening 28.4.2018, and, 29.4.2018, and, the afore occurrence also took place in the house, jointly inherited by the bail-applicant, and, the afore principal offender, (iii) hence the learned Additional Advocate General contends, qua, hers visibly being presumed, to be hence residing at the place of occurrence, along with her son(s), and, with hers not rearing any idea, of, alibi, hence he further contends, that, the afore submission rather gathering immense weight. However, for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, this Court negatives, his afore submission (a) the incident, occurring in the night, intervening 28.4.2018, and, 29.4.2018, being reported by the real daughter of the bail-applicant, to, the police, and, (b) in her statement, recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. hers making clear echoings qua the bail-applicant rather unfolding to her qua the deceased, being murdered by her son ,one Matta Dass, (c) since the afore rendered statement also galvanized, the criminal machinery, and, when the daughter, of, the bail-applicant, is not residing along with the latter, rather, is residing, at her matrimonial home, (iv) hence the afore rendered statement by one Reena, encapsulating, therein the afore version, is, a palpable display, vis-a-vis, the prima facie innocence, of the bail applicant. Moreover, the effect, of, the afore inference, is qua even if the bail-applicant, has enabled the recovery, of the burnt clothes of the deceased, thereupon, no argument can be made by the learned Additional Advocate General qua hers being, an, accessory at the fact.