Gujarat High Court Declines Bail To Husband Booked For Wife's Murder After Noting That He Tried To Mislead The Probe

The Gujarat High Court recently rejected a man's bail plea who is accused of his wife's murder after noting that he had attempted to mislead the probe by first filing a missing person complaint and a habeas corpus petition before the court despite identifying the place from where the remains of his deceased wife's body were dug out.

Justice A.Y. Kogje in his November 29 order observed:

The court also observed that the man's role was "vital in the commission of offence like murder of his wife", which was different from the role of the co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court in July.

It said that the man's role  cannot be equated with the other accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail and so the "principle of parity will not be applicable" to the man's case. 

The man had moved the High Court seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered under IPC Sections 302 (Murder), 201 (destruction of evidence or giving false information to shield an offender from punishment), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and 177 (furnishing false information) and under Section 135 (Penalizes contraventions of orders issued by authorities under the Act) of the Gujarat Police Act. 

The Advocate for the applicant submitted that the he is 41 years old and in jail since March, 2019. He further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on June, 2018 and FIR was registered on March, 2019, after 9 months. He then contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and prima facie, there is lack of concrete material in the chargesheet to establish the chain of circumstances against the applicant and out of 81 witnesses, 15 are yet to be examined and hence, trial is likely to consume more time. The counsel then argued on the grounds of parity that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court and the Apex Courts, therefore, the applicant deserves consideration.

The prosecution's counsel objected to the bail application contending that the gravity of the murder is brutal against the wife. He submitted that the applicant with the assistance of other co-accused had successfully misled the investigation agency and the offence couldn't be detected for a year. It was contended that the accused persons claimed to be unaware of the whereabouts of the deceased for which a missing complaint and a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed to misdirect the investigation. He then contended that forensic evidence like bloodstains matches with the stains found in the car used to commit the crime. He then added that the trial is on going and witness are to be examined hence, the applicant should not be granted bail at this stage.

The court noted that allegation against the accused persons is that the deceased and the present applicant had quarrels earlier, as the deceased had got an offence registered against the applicant. This was due to the fact that the accused husband had married another woman and the deceased did not like that. 

It was alleged that present applicant, along with other co-accused, hatched conspiracy from June 1, 2018 to June 9, 2018 to murder the deceased. It was alleged that the  applicant picked up his wife from her house and at a secluded place the present applicant along with the co-accused persons inflicted five to six blows, consecutively, to the deceased on her neck and belly and caused her death. 

It was then noted by the Court that they took the dead body to an open plot, owned by one of the co-accused persons who had already dug a pit. Later, with the help of other co-accused persons they buried the body. 

It then said, "The role of the applicant is therefore, coming out very clear from the charge-sheet papers. The Court has taken into consideration certain statements of the witnesses, particularly the witnesses who have directly connected the applicant with the entire offence of murder has taken place in the car...This Court has also independently considered the role attributed to the co-accused, who are enlarged on regular bail...From the statement of the independent witnesses, it is coming out that it is the applicant, who participated in the offence with other co-accused from the beginning, i.e to say from the stage of conspiracy and execution and thereafter, identifying the place for burring the deceased and after sometime changing the location of the dead body and burring it somewhere else. The strongest motive is against the present applicant whereas role of other co-accused is coming out only on the basis of statement of the present applicant". 

The Court then observed that the trial is almost at its last stage and only 5 witnesses are to be examined and “therefore, not be prudent to enlarge the applicant on bail”.

It thereafter dismissed the bail plea.

Case Title: Ismail @Malo Husain Manjothi vs State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 187

Click Here To Read/Download Order