Uttarakhand High Court
Laxmi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
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