High Court of Delhi was dealing with the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. R/w section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR under Section 302/201/34 IPC.
Brief Facts:
On 15.05.20 an unidentified dead body was found in the Yamuna River. On 22.05.20 the dead body was identified as that of Ajab Singh S/o Mange Ram by the mother of the deceased. As per the PM report, "cause of death in this case is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem manual strangulation which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature, manner of death: Homicide". On 07.09.20 Smt. Bati Devi W/o Lt. Sh Mange Ram made a complaint regarding the murder of his son Ajab Singh. The complainant alleged that her daughter in law, Varsha (wife of deceased Ajab Singh) and her grandson Ajay S/o Azad Singh (Azad Singh is elder brother of deceased Ajab Singh), the present petitioners have an illegitimate relationship, which came to the knowledge of deceased Ajab Singh. According to the complainant there was a quarrel between Ajab Singh and his wife over this issue. On that night Varsha, wife of deceased Ajab Singh came to Smt Bati Devi and stated that Ajab Singh and his motorcycle were not at home. Next day they searched for Ajab Singh everywhere but could not find him. On 16/05/2020 petitioner Varsha got registered a missing report regarding deceased Ajab Singh. The complainant Bati Devi further alleged that she has full suspicion on her grandson Ajay and daughter in law Varsa because her grandson Ajay threatened her.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the mother of the deceased at the very first instance has not placed suspicion on anybody and only after more than 3 months of the incident the mother of the deceased has lodged the FIR against the petitioner and her co-accused and there is a delay of more than 3 months in registering the FIR. He further submitted that the cause of death as per the postmortem report is due to asphyxia due to manual strangulation whereas as per the death report it is mentioned that the cause of death is due to drowning. He further submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner Varsha followed the deceased when he left the house or she informed co-accused that deceased has left the house.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature and public witnesses are yet to be examined. He further submitted that the petitioners were interrogated and in their disclosure statements they had stated that they had killed Ajab Singh by strangulating him. It was further submitted that weapon of offence i.e., danda was recovered from the house of petitioner Varsha at the instance of both the petitioners. He further submitted that there were blunt injuries which were caused by danda recovered at the instance of both the petitioners.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court found that the mother of the deceased has not placed any suspicion on anybody on the said date and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem manual strangulation. It was only on 07.09.2020 that the mother of the deceased lodged the present FIR and placed suspicion on her grandson petitioner Ajay Dedha and daughter in law petitioner Varsha as her grandson had threatened her that he would kill her as he has killed her son and asked her not to come in between him and Varsha. There is nothing in her statement to suggest that petitioner Varsha followed the deceased when he went out of the house or informed anyone about his leaving the house.
Court observe that as per the case of the prosecution, on 14.05.2020 petitioner Varsha had called the petitioner Ajay Dedha at her house and it is then they had killed Ajab Singh by strangulation and took the body of the deceased on his motorcycle and dumped the body on Paltoon pool. But here, it is pertinent to note that according to the mother of the deceased the deceased had left the house in a drunken state and he did not return thereafter, meaning thereby, the complainant had seen the deceased leaving the house.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “No doubt, at the stage of bail only primafacie case is to be seen but the Court cannot shut eyes to the material facts and circumstances emerging from the record. In the instant case, as per the case of the prosecution itself the death is due to strangulation, therefore, the recovery of danda at the instance of petitioners is meaningless and it is a joint recovery. In the instant case, apart from danda, no other recovery has been affected at the instance of the petitioners/accused persons. There is no evidence of last scene. As per the case of the prosecution itself, which has opened up on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused persons/petitioners danda is not connected with the offence.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Case Title: Ajay Dedha v. State
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 850/2021
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments