High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2734 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Preeti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 407 of 2021, under Sections 304, 324 IPC, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
Legal Reasoning
The complainant has lodged the first information report of this case alleging that there was some dispute between her son Devendra and his wife Preeti (applicant). On 07.08.2021 while her son Devendra has gone to his work in factory, at about 01.00 PM his wife Preeti along with her two children, namely, Daksh, aged six years, and Naksh, aged four years, went into room. After hearing cries of child Daksh, the complainant along with other family members ran to the room and found that the room of Preeti and children was closed from inside, however they got it opened and saw that both children, namely, Daksh and Naksh, were crying and they were having cut injuries on their neck and her daughter-in-law Preeti was also having injuries at her neck and she was trying to cut her neck. The complainant and her family members have overpowered Preeti but one of the child, namely, Naksh has already died at spot. The injured Daksh and Preeti were taken to hospital. The complainant alleged that her daughter-in-law Preeti (applicant) has committed murder of one of her child and injured another child, due to dispute with her husband. The complainant reported the matter to police and first information report of this case was lodged under Section 302 and 307 IPC.
Legal Reasoning
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was suffering from mental illness and she was under treatment of psychiatrist since before the alleged incident. The first informant and husband of applicant and their other family members have submitted affidavits to the police to the effect that this case may be closed as they did not want any further action. Learned counsel has referred observations made in the case diary, which has been annexed as annexure-13, wherein the Investigating Officer has stated that the treatment papers of injured were verified from Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya District Hospital, Moradabad and it was found that the applicant has remained under treatment from 11.01.2021 to 30.07.2021. Dr. S.N Tiwari, MU Hospital, Moradabad has told to the Investigating Officer that after incident, the applicant and her injured children were brought in the hospital and that on 16.09.2021 she was referred to Mental Hospital, Bareilly. He has also stated that as per medical documents of AIIMS, Delhi applicant was suffering from bipolar disorder and she was also epileptic. In their affidavits to the police, the complainant and her family members have also stated that applicant was not mentally sound and often she used to suffer mental fits. Referring to papers of treatment, it was submitted that applicant was suffering from bipolar disorder. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, it is apparent that applicant was not a mentally sound lady and thus, the case of applicant is covered under Section 84 of IPC. The police is trying to arrest applicant without taking recourse to Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C. The applicant is mother of deceased and injured child and she has absolutely no motive to commit murder of her son. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the first information report, which was lodged by the mother-in-law of applicant, there is absolutely no such version that applicant was suffering from any mental illness. In the first information report it was alleged that applicant has committed this incident due to dispute with her husband. Regarding statements of doctor, it was submitted that there is no such medical report of competent doctor/Board that applicant is suffering from any serious mental illness or that she is a person of unsound mind. Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is nothing to show that applicant was suffering from such mental disorder or unsoundness of mind that she was incapable of knowing the nature of her act in causing harm to her minor children. Perusal of record shows that in the first information report, there is absolutely no such version that applicant is suffering from any kind of mental illness or unsoundness, rather it was alleged by the complainant that she has committed the incident in question due to dispute with her husband. As per prosecution version, after taking lunch, she took her minor children inside the room and bolted the same from inside and thereafter committed the incident. There is also no such record that applicant was ever admitted in any mental hospital before this incident. The statement of one Dr. S.N. Tiwari that as per medical documents of AIIMS, Delhi, applicant was suffering from bipolar disorder and she was also epileptic is an opinion given on medical papers of AIIMS, Delhi but there is no opinion of any concerned doctor, who might have treated her for mental disorder. There is nothing to show that applicant was ever admitted in mental hospital for her treatment before this incident or even after this incident. Though the investigating officer has converted the case from section 302 IPC to section 304 IPC but there is no such cogent medical opinion that applicant was suffering from such mental disorder or unsoundness of mind that she was incapable of knowing the nature of her act in committing the alleged incident. It is also not the case of applicant that any recourse has been taken to the Mental Healthcare Act. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 27.7.2022 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.04 10:15:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad