The Delhi High Court has recently rejected the bail plea of a woman accused in the murder case of her live-in partner in September 2019.
The high court stated that the statements of hostile witnesses can’t be discarded in toto.
The accused was living with one Sunil after leaving her husband and 3-year-old child. She has been in judicial custody since September 19, 2019.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar dismissed the bail plea of Anita Chetri after considering the facts and submissions by the defence and prosecution.
Justice Bhatnagar observed that though the petitioner has a child, as per the testimony of her husband who has been examined as a prosecution witness, she has even left the child and started living with Sunil (since deceased), and she is not supporting any child as her child is living with her estranged husband.
Justice Bhatnagar stated in the judgement passed on October 17, 2023,”Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, no ground for bail is made out. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.”
The high court stated, “However, the learned trial court to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible.”
It was the case of the petitioner herself that deceased Sunil was alive when she left the house, and she had even talked to him during the intervening night of September 9 and 10, 2019 and they had been living in the stated house for almost last a year and no robbery or dacoity was committed in the said house on the date of the incident.
The high court rejected the contention of the defence counsel that the public witnesses have been examined and they havn’t supported the case of the prosecution.
It stated, “As far as this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same does not cut much ice at this stage, as this is not the stage to deeply analyse the testimonies of the witnesses and to draw inconsistencies between the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution as it might prejudice the case of either of the parties, and it is also to be noted that even if the testimony of the hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto.”
It is a case of persecution that on September 10, 2019, at about 2:20 p.m., a person made a telephone call at PS Amar Colony and informed that one person was lying dead in his rented accommodation.
Upon receiving the call, the police team rushed to the spot and on reaching there, the body of a male was found lying on the 3rd floor of the building inside the room.
A sharp cut was found on the neck of the deceased, and blood was oozing out from the body.
During the inquiry, the identity of the deceased was revealed as Sunil who was residing at the said floor in Lajpat Nagar-iv with his live-in-partner Anita Chetri.
Accordingly, a case FIR No. 294/2019 U/s 302 IPC was registered at PS Amar Colony and an investigation went underway.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a woman and has been in Judicial custody since September 19, 2019, and she has been falsely implicated.
Furthermore, it was submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner in regard to the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by her along with the co-accused to eliminate Sunil.
Petitioner’s counsel further submitted that all the public witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that she wasn’t present at the time of the incident at the crime scene. The prosecution has cited 41 witnesses, and the trial will take a long time.
On the other hand, the Additional public prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application. He argued along the lines of the Status Report.
He submitted that the petitioner was living with one Sunil (since deceased) at Amar Colony and the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the IO. She has stated that on the night of the incident September 9, 2019 at around 11:30 p.m. she hired a cab and left for her friend’s house in Noida.
It was also submitted that when the petitioner left the house as stated by the petitioner herself Sunil was present and he was alone.
He argued that the petitioner talked twice with Sunil from her friend’s house in Noida where she was staying that night. The petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accused persons has eliminated Sunil.
Furthermore, it was submitted by the APP that neither there is any forceful entry in the house where the deceased Sunil was residing nor there are any allegations of robbery or dacoity.
After considering all the facts the high court dismissed the bail petition.