HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1476 of 2024 Laxmi …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini and Ms. Shazia Siddiqui, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, AGA for the State. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.73 of 2024, dated 27.02.2024, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the deceased was mother- in-law of the applicant. The applicant was in the extramarital relationship, to which, the deceased did object. The FIR states that in the intervening night of 14/15 February, 2024, the deceased was killed. When the son of the deceased, who happens to be husband of the applicant, visited his mother in the morning to take tea, he found her dead and also noted that there were marks 2 on her neck. He inquired from the applicant, as to where was she in the previous night? To which, she gave a false reply. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant; FIR has been much delayed, which is lodged after about 11 days; there is no eye-witness of the incident; the WhatsAap chats, which were allegedly recovered from the applicant’s phone does not connect the applicant to the offence; there is no material to suggest that the deceased has ever told to any witness that the applicant was in extramarital relationship. It is also argued that the dead body was found in Ghair (a place outside the house) and the applicant was not staying with the deceased in the Ghair. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the applicant has a strong motive to kill the deceased. The applicant was having extramarital relations with many persons, to which, the deceased objected. The deceased died due to strangulation, as confirmed by the medical evidence. The applicant has got recovered her scarf, by which, she strangulated the deceased. It is also argued that, in fact, the phone of the 3 applicant was recovered and in the WhatsAap chat, it is revealed that she was in conversation with the co-accused and it reveals that she had killed the deceased because she writes, “Yar dar lag raha h. Kahi name naa aa jaye”. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that many witnesses including the informant have stated about the extramarital relations of the applicant. 7. 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. 8. According to the prosecution, the applicant was in extramarital relationship, to which, her mother-in-law objected to. There was one more conduct of the applicant which was indicated by the informant that when the dead body was taken for bathing, the applicant insisted that she would bath the dead body by her own and when the high-neck sweater of the deceased was removed then the marks on her neck were revealed. According to the prosecution, in fact the applicant wanted to hide the marks and close the chapter as a natural death. Many 4 witnesses have stated about the extramarital relations of the applicant with one Johny and others and it was also told that the deceased had objected to it. Prosecution has also relied on the WhatsAap chat made by the applicant to the co-accused, indicating that it confirms the role of the applicant, in killing the deceased. The postmortem report reveals that it is a case of strangulation. 9. 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. 10. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.03.2025 Sanjay