Mr. Dipanshu Chugh, Advocate (through VC) v. STATE

Judgment

1. Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 1136/2020 dated 04.12.2020 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Nihal Vihar for offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The charge-sheet in the subject FIR has been filed under Sections 302/301/34 of IPC before the Trial Court on 13.09.2022 and charges against the Applicant as well as the co-accused, Mufeed Ansari have been framed under Sections 302/301/34 of IPC. Brief Facts 3. As per the case of the prosecution, as set out in the Status Reports, is that on 17.11.2020 complainant, Kalandar Ansari filed a missing complaint for his son, Rohil Ansari at P.S. Paschim Vihar West, Delhi. However, later on the BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:27 said complaint was transferred to P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi and consequently, the subject FIR was registered against the Applicant herein and her husband, Mufeed Ansari. 3.1. It is stated that Rohil Ansari was living on rent at Peeragarhi, Delhi and working as a helper at Delhi Metro. 3.2. It is stated that the complainant disclosed that his nephew, Mufeed Ansari along with his wife, Tarnnum (i.e., the Applicant herein) live at D-3/36, Gali No. 19, Kunwar Singh Nagar Nangloi, Delhi (‘Applicant’s house’). It is stated that Rohil was a friend of Tarnnum, and he often visited her. 3.3. It is stated that on 16.11.2020, the complainant received a call from his son-in-law, Mohd. Manzar, who informed that Rohil had left his residence at 12:30 PM on 15.11.2020 but has not returned since then and further enquired if Rohil had visited the complainant. 3.4. It is stated that since there was no clue regarding Rohil’s whereabouts, the complainant along with his son-in-law Mohd. Manzar, visited the Applicant’s house to inquire about Rohil. However, accused Mufeed and Applicant/Tarnnum informed the complainant that they had no knowledge about the whereabouts of Rohil. 3.5. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant lodged a complaint on 17.11.2020, which led to registration of the subject FIR under Sections 365 IPC. 3.6. It is stated that during the investigation, CCTV cameras installed in and around the Applicant’s house were checked and it was found that on

15.11.2020 at about 1:44 PM Rohil was seen going towards the Applicant’s house. It is stated that CCTV footage showed that accused Mufeed was seen going towards Applicant’s house at about 2:15 PM in his Honda City Car. It is BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:27 stated that thereafter, at about 2:36 PM, the Car of Mufeed was seen going away from the Applicant’s house. 3.7. It is stated that during investigation it was found that both, accused Mufeed and the Applicant/Tarnnum had fled away from Delhi and they were nowhere to be found. It is stated that as per the CDR analysis, the accused persons i.e., Mufeed and the Applicant (collectively referred to as ‘accused persons’) were found at their native place at Taki Nagar in West Medinipur (West Bengal) and they were arrested from Taki Nagar after interrogation on

08.12.2020. 3.8. It is stated that during interrogation on 12.12.2024 the accused persons confessed that on 15.11.2020, they murdered Rohil Ansari by strangulation and thereafter threw Rohil’s dead body at GT Karnal Road, Sonipat, Haryana. It is stated that at the instance of accused and Applicant herein, the dead body was recovered. It is stated that mobile phone of deceased, Rohil Ansari was recovered from the accused Mufeed Ansari. And pursuant to this Section 302/34 IPC were added to the FIR in the facts of the present case. 3.9. It is stated that the co-accused, Mufeed in his disclosure statement disclosed that he has been living in Delhi since last 8-9 years and got married to the Applicant/Tarnnum in 2014. He stated that on 15.11.2020 he left for work in the morning and upon returning at around 2 PM, he found that the door to his room closed from inside, while deceased Rohil was in the house during his absence. It was disclosed that Mufeed strangulated Rohil using dupatta of the Applicant/Tarnnum, while Applicant/Tarnnum held deceased’s hands. It is stated that the body of the deceased was loaded in the Honda city Car by the co-accused and the Applicant/Tarnnum and thereafter the body was thrown at GT Karnal Road, Sonipat. BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:27

3.10. It is stated that the trial is at the initial stage, as out of 31 witnesses total of 3 witnesses have been examined. It is stated that the next date of

15.04.2025. 3.11. It is stated that after analysis of the CDRs of the accused persons it was found that Applicant’s mobile was switched off from 7:47 PM on 15.11.2020 to 02:18 AM on 16.11.2020. It is stated that the location of the co-accused, Mufeed’s mobile was found at Tehsil-district, Sonipat on 15.11.2020 at 10:37 PM, where the dead-body of the deceased was found in the trench. 3.12. During course of arguments, learned APP stated that at the time of recording of the statement of the complainant initially in November, 2020, P.S. Paschim Vihar West checked the CCTV footage near the Applicant’s house, as per which at about 2:15 PM, Honda City Car of the co-accused Mufeed was seen going away from the Applicant’s home. He stated that the CCTV footage was recovered from the neighbour i.e., Naresh at the relevant time. 3.13. It is stated that however, after the body of the deceased was discovered, when I.O. tried to obtain the said CCTV footage near the Applicant’s house the same was not available due to lapse of time. Arguments on behalf of the Applicant 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant was arrested on 08.12.2020 and as on 18.10.2024 as per the Nominal Roll1, the Applicant has already undergone a period of 3 Years and 10 Months in the judicial custody. He states that no recovery has been affected from the Applicant, which connects the Applicant with the murder of the deceased. 4.1. He states that the public witness i.e., the complainant has already been examined and discharged. He states that only formal and police witnesses BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:28 remain to be examined in the present case and therefore, there is no possibility of the Applicant/accused tampering with the evidence or witnesses. 4.2. He states that the conduct of the Applicant has been good and nothing adverse has been recorded against the Applicant. He states that no case is pending against the Applicant and she has clean antecedents. 4.3. He states that no role has been assigned to the present Applicant and the Applicant has not done anything in the offence committed. 4.4. He states that the Applicant has already undergone the sentence prescribed for offence under Section 201 IPC and therefore, she should get the benefit of Section 436A Cr.P.C. He states that further even if the version of the prosecution is believed then too at best a case under Section 304 Part II Exception 4 IPC is made out against the Applicant. 4.5. He states that the Applicant and the co-accused, Mufeed were arrested in West Bengal on 08.12.2020. He states that disclosure statement recorded on

08.12.2020 do not record that Applicant held the hands of the deceased when the co-accused strangulated the deceased. He states that this embellishment has been included when the Applicant was brought to Delhi and the I.O. once again recorded statement on 12.12.2020. He states that this is a material improvement included in the disclosure statement to implicate the Applicant. He states that as per the prosecution the Applicant was in an extra marital relationship with the deceased and the allegation that she participated in the murder is improbable. 4.6. He states that there is no CCTV footage for 15.11.2020 which shows that the Applicant/Tarnnum accompanied the co-accused, Mufeed out of the house to dump the body of the deceased as alleged. 1 Dated 19.10.2024 BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:28

4.7. He states that the alleged joint discovery of the body at the instance of the Applicant and the co-accused can also not be attributed to her as she was merely present when the discovery was made at the instance of the co-accused Mufeed. He states that there is no CDR of the Applicant’s mobile placing her at the scene of disposal of the body of the deceased at Sonipat. Arguments on behalf of the State 5. In reply, the learned APP states that the allegations against the Applicant/accused are with respect to Section 302/34/201 IPC. He states that the Applicant along with the co-accused i.e., the Applicant’s husband had committed the murder of the deceased, Rohil Ansari and thereafter, the deceased’s body was thrown by them at GT Road, Sonipat. 5.1. He states that during interrogation in West Bengal, the Applicant disclosed that she along with her husband murdered Rohil Ansari by strangulating him and that thereafter they threw away the deceased’s body on the Highway of the GT Karnal Road, Sonipat. 5.2. He states that as per the CDR analysis, Applicant’s mobile was switched off from 7:47 PM on 15.11.2020 to 02:18 AM on 16.11.2020. 5.3. He states that as per the CDR analysis, the Applicant and deceased were in contact and calls were made at 12:15 PM, 12:28 PM and 13:39 PM on

15.11.2020. 5.4. He states that after the commission of the offence, the Applicant along with the co-accused, Mufeed ran away to West Bengal and they had to be arrested there and brought back to Delhi. 5.5. He states that as per the second disclosure statement of the Applicant and the co-accused, specific role has been ascribed to the Applicant in the commission of the murder of the deceased. BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:28

5.6. He states that the recovery of the dead body of the deceased was made at the instance of the Applicant and the co-accused, Mufeed from Sonipat, Haryana. 5.7. He states that circumstantial evidence including the last scene evidence, technical evidence i.e., the CCTV footage, CDR and other evidences clearly indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the commission of the alleged offences. 5.8. He states that significantly on 17.11.2020 when the complainant i.e., the father of the deceased went to the house of the Applicant/Tarnnum and co- accused, Mufeed to enquire about the whereabouts of Rohil, Applicant misled the complainant by denying that she had met the deceased on 15.11.2020. He states that if the Applicant was not guilty, she should have apprised the complainant about the murder of the deceased. 5.9. He confirms that from the date extracted from the mobile phone of the deceased, no incriminating videos or photos of the Applicant/Tarnnum have been found therein. 5.10. He states that the CDR analysis of the co-accused, Mufeed for

15.11.2020 shows the co-accused, Mufeed’s location at Sonipat from where the body of the deceased was recovered. He states that for the relevant time mobile phone of the Applicant was probably switched off and therefore there are no CDR details. However, this does not rule out that the Applicant accompanied co-accused Mufeed, when Mufeed went to Sonipat, as the dead body was discovered at their joint instance. He states that these facts will be duly proved at trial. BAIL APPLN. 3500/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:49:28 Analysis and conclusion 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before adverting to the analysis of the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to the factors which are to be taken into consideration for granting bail to an accused, similarly placed to the Applicant herein and in the peculiar facts of the present case. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee2, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi3, and Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 has set out the conditions to be considered by Court while granting bail, which are summarized as under: - (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.