Shafi Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttarakhand

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.114 of 2024, dated 25.02.2024, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution, the deceased was in relationship with one of her married neighbour. According to the FIR on 23/24.02.2024, at any time in the midnight, she was killed by her family members. The family members were in the process of burying the deceased. But, in the meanwhile, the police was informed. The police reached and saw that there were multiple injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. Police found that the case was suspicious; therefore, post-mortem was conducted. After post-mortem, the dead body was given to the family members. According to the post-mortem the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. 2

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence; it is the case of the petitioner that they had recovered the dead body from District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, but police did not make any entry in the concerned Police Station. In fact, it is argued that the inquest report does not record as to at what time it began and when it was concluded. She would submit that there are multiple witnesses, who have been examined; PW2 to PW11 have not supported the prosecution case; they have been declared hostile. It is also argued that the applicant and his wife, both are in jail and they have only one child of 13 years old back at home; there is none to look after him; there is one solitary evidence which is being pressed by the prosecution against the appellant that the death was due to throttling. But, it is argued that it is the sole piece of evidence against the applicant and it does not complete the chain of the evidence which may prove the guilt. It is also argued that in para 4 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application, the applicant has categorically stated that perhaps the deceased had either committed suicide or she was killed by her boy friend. It is argued that in the first counter affidavit that was filed by the prosecution this fact was admitted. Therefore, the applicant is able to show, how the deceased died and it is a case fit for bail at this stage.

5. Learned State Counsel submits the bail application of the wife of the applicant has already been rejected. He would submit that the deceased had illicit relations with a married man in her neighbour, due to which, the deceased was 3 killed by the applicant in his home. He submits that the death was homicidal which is proved by the PW12 Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem; it was obligatory on the applicant to show, as to how the deceased died.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

7. In fact, many witnesses were examined, who have not stated anything about the applicant. PW1 is a person, who had received information about suspicious death of the deceased and he proceeded accordingly, and recovered dead body and prepared panchnama, inquest, etc. He had admitted in his cross-examination that when he visited District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh to recover the dead body, he could not make entry of his visit in the concerned Police Station, as he had less time.

8. Undoubtedly, it is a case based on circumstantial evidences. It is true that in first counter affidavit filed by the prosecution, contents of para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, has not been denied and it was stated that it was based on record. In subsequent affidavit, as such it is not admitted. But, it is stated that in so far as the documents are concerned to that extent it is admitted, which means the other facts are not admitted in the subsequent affidavit. In fact, in para 4 the applicant submits that in the intervening night of 23/24.02.2024, 4 he saw his daughter meeting a man at night. He scolded and slapped her, due to which, her boy friend and the victim were upset and either she hung herself out of frustration or died by throttling by her boy friend.

9. There are few things which may be noted. It is true that in the inquest timing are not recorded. Its effect may be examined later at the trial. But, the panchnama records that according to the family members, the deceased had committed suicide in the intervening night since she had relations with a married man in neighbour and at the time of inquest the family members had said that they had found the deceased hanging from a dupatta. It is important to note that one of the witnesses of the inquest is the applicant. In view of the post-mortem report, this story is perhaps not acceptable because as per the doctor the death was due to throttling. In the inquest, false information has been given that the deceased died of hanging. The family members including the applicant wanted to bury the deceased.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

11. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.12.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5 04686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD 8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE406 99, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA