# Smt. Aysha Khatoon (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1272
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-03-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1623 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-aysha-khatoon-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47381
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Bail application - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302,
201-B
&
34
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 161 - A criminal
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy
and it is difficult to obtain direct evidence.
It is well settled that a man may tell a lie,
but
circumstances
do
not.
The
circumstances of this case are conclusive
in nature, which is in proximity to the time
and situation. Therefore, the innocence of
the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre
trial stage. (Para 10)

In present case, nature of offence, the gravity
involved therein and the manner in which the
crime has been committed, no case for bail is
made out. (Para 11)

It is a brutal and heinous double murder case,
in which a helpless mother, who blindly trusted
upon the co-accused, Shamshad and living with
him for the last five years, and her little
daughter have been flagitiously killed and their
dead bodies had been hid by the co-accused
Shamshad with the help of his brother-in-law
Dilshad (Sala) in the floor of the room, which
were recovered on the pointing out of the coaccused, Shamshad in a decomposed condition.

From the Call Detail Report of the accused
persons it is clear that in the intervening night
of 28/29.3.2020 (when crime took place) and in
day time on 29.3.2021 there were continuous
telephonic conversation amongst the accused
persons and they also sent messages to each
other and the location of their phones were
traced at the place of occurrence, therefore, the
involvement of the applicant in the crime cannot
be ruled out. (Para 10)

Application rejected. (E-4)

## Text

1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
finding recorded by the trial court holding
appellant Amar Singh guilty for the offence
under Section 304-I of IPC and Section
25/27 of Arms Act deserves to be set aside
and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

39. Accordingly, the present criminal
appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
dated 01.03.2019 passed by 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Sessions
Trial No. 2 of 2008, State vs. Amar Singh
and another & Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2008
(State Vs. Amar Singh), under Sections 304
IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, respectively, P.S.
Rajapur, District Chitrakoot is set aside.
The appellant is acquitted from the charges
leveled against him. The appellant is in jail.
He be released forthwith, in case, he is not
wanted in any other case provided the
appellant files a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned in
compliance of section 437-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure.

40. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court concerned forthwith
to ensure compliance and further send back
the lower court record.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1272
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1623 of 2021

Smt. Aysha Khatoon ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, Sri Avnish Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Bail application - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302,
201-B
&
34
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 161 - A criminal
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy
and it is difficult to obtain direct evidence.
It is well settled that a man may tell a lie,
but
circumstances
do
not.
The
circumstances of this case are conclusive
in nature, which is in proximity to the time
and situation. Therefore, the innocence of
the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre
trial stage. (Para 10)

In present case, nature of offence, the gravity
involved therein and the manner in which the
crime has been committed, no case for bail is
made out. (Para 11)

It is a brutal and heinous double murder case,
in which a helpless mother, who blindly trusted
upon the co-accused, Shamshad and living with
him for the last five years, and her little
daughter have been flagitiously killed and their
dead bodies had been hid by the co-accused
Shamshad with the help of his brother-in-law
Dilshad (Sala) in the floor of the room, which
were recovered on the pointing out of the coaccused, Shamshad in a decomposed condition.

From the Call Detail Report of the accused
persons it is clear that in the intervening night
of 28/29.3.2020 (when crime took place) and in
day time on 29.3.2021 there were continuous
telephonic conversation amongst the accused
persons and they also sent messages to each
other and the location of their phones were
traced at the place of occurrence, therefore, the
involvement of the applicant in the crime cannot
be ruled out. (Para 10)

Application rejected. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)
9 All Smt. Aysha Khatoon Vs. State of U.P.
1273

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the State and perused the
record of the case.

2. The instant bail application has
been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt.
Aysha Khatoon, with a prayer to release
her on bail in Case Crime No. 454 of 2020,
under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34
IPC,
police
station
Partapur,
district
Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

3. In short compass the facts of the
case as unfolded by the prosecution in the
first information report are that the
complainant, Chanchal Chaudhry, who is
friend of one of the deceased-Priya has
lodged the first information report on
14.7.2020 at about 10.10 A.M. against the
co-accused, Shamshad (husband of the
present applicant, Smt. Aysha Khatoon) for
the offence under Section 364 IPC, which
was registered as Case Crime No. 454 of
2020 at police station Partapur, district M
eerut to the effect that the co-accused
Shamshad, who is Muslim by caste and
was already married with the present
applicant had lured and masquerade the
deceased-Priya five years ago and had
solemnized his second marriage with her.
Thereafter,
deceased-Priya
and
her
daughter, Kashish (second deceased of this
case) were residing with him. After the
marriage,
the
deceased-Priya
has
telephonically informed the complainant
that as she (deceased-Priya) came to know
about the first marriage of the co-accused
Shamshad, he used to torture and harass
and threatened the deceased and her
daughter of dire consequence. The Report
further mentions that for the last time i.e.
on 28.3.2020, the complainant had a
conversation with the deceased Priya on
phone,
and
thereafter
no
telephonic
conversation
was
made
between
the
complainant and deceased. Thereafter,
when the accused, Shamshad sold the flat,
which was in the name of deceased-Priya
and also withdrew the amount from the
bank account of the deceased by cheque,
then the complainant raised a suspicion that
something wrong has happened with both
the deceased. The complainant also came to
know that scooty of the victim bearing No.
UP 14 CY-840 was also lying in the
Partapur police station unclaimed. In such a
situation, having no option left, the
complainant had given a written report
(Tehreer) in the Partapur police station, in
which no action was taken by the police
and on the pressure of the police personnel
she had given an application that she does
not want to take any action. Thereupon, the
complainant has lodged the present first
information report raising suspicion that
something untoward has happened with her
friend-Priya and her daughter-Kashish.

4. After lodging of the instant F.I.R.
the statement of complainant was recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of
aforesaid statement of the complainant, the
co-accused, Shamshad was arrested by the
police. On interrogation, the co-accused
confessed to his guilt before the police and
thereafter his confessional statement was
recorded, in which he disclosed that
complainant Chanchal Chaudhrey had
brought the deceased-Priya to him to get
the job and he provided her job, and
thereafter, the deceased-Priya resided with
him (co-accused, Shamshad) under live-in
relationship and he used to bear all the
expenses of both the deceased. He also
stated
that
in
the
meantime,
some
altercation took place between the deceased
and him, and the deceased also implicated
him (Shamshad) in her rape case, in which
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settlement has taken place between them,
and he has given Rs. 3,00,000/- to deceased
Priya for compromising in the said case.
Co-accused-Shamshad also stated that the
deceased was a very high ambitious lady
and also spend much money and was
leading luxurious life and when he tried to
stop her from doing so, she started
squabbling with him. In the intervening
night of 28/29.3.2020 when the deceased
started quarreling with him and demanded
money, then he strangulated the victim to
death and also killed her daughter (second
deceased) by putting the pillow on her face.
The co-accused Shamshad also confessed
that the dead bodies of Priya and Vanshika
were hid by him in the floor of the L.E.D.
room of his house. The official of the
police
after
completing
necessary
formalities exhumed the dead bodies from
the floor of the house, as pointed out by the
applicant in his confessional statement, and
recovered the skeleton and other parts of
the bodies in a decomposed condition.
After investigation, the case has been
converted to one under Sections 302, 201-B
and 34 IPC and charge sheet has been
submitted by the Investigating Officer
against the co-accused, Shamshad, his wife,
Ayesha Khatoon (present applicant) and
her brother-Dilawar.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that initially the case was
registered for the offence under Section
364 IPC and after investigation the same
has been converted to one under Sections
302, 201-B and 34 IPC against the three
accused including the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant also
submitted that being the wife of accusedShamshad, she has falsely been dragged in
this case. The applicant is not named in the
F.I.R. The name of the applicant has
surfaced in the statement of the co-accusedShamshad and except the said statement of
the co-accused there is no evidence against
the applicant. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submitted that the coaccused, Shamshad on account of his extra
marital relation with the deceased-Priya,
ousted the applicant (wife) from his house.
The applicant has no concern with the
offence in question and in fact the applicant
was living in Bihar with her minor son and
in the month of February, 2020 the
applicant came to Meerut. She has a small
boy of four years, who at present is living
with his maternal uncle (Mama). There is
no direct evidence against the applicant.
Nothing has been recovered from the
possession or at the pointing out of the
applicant. In the present case there is not
even an iota of evidence with the
prosecution to show that there was any
conspiracy between the applicant and coaccused, Shamshad for commission of an
offence under Section 302 IPC nor there is
any evidence to suggest that they shared
any common intention for the murder.
There is inconsistency in the statement of
the complainant and version of the F.I.R.
The complainant in the F.I.R. has not
named the applicant. Learned counsel for
the applicant also submitted that the coaccused, namely, Kapil and Nakul Sharma
have already been enlarged on bail by the
court below and by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide orders dated 25.5.2021
and 17.12.2020 passed in Bail Application
No. 2514 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Bail
Application
No.
47216
of
2020
respectively. The applicant has no criminal
history to her credit and is languishing in
jail since 20.8.2020 and in case she is
enlarged on bail she will not misuse the
liberty of bail.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rabindra
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional
9 All Smt. Aysha Khatoon Vs. State of U.P.
1275
Government Advocate vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and contended that it is a
double murder case and the applicant along
with his brother, Dilshad and husbandShamshad hatched a criminal conspiracy,
in which a young lady and her small
daughter have lost their lives. From perusal
of the Call Detail Records of the applicant,
her husband Shamshad and her brother
Dilawar, it is apparently clear that in the
whole night of 28.3.2020 and in a day time
on
29.8.2020,
they
had
continuous
conversation and sending messages to each
other. Learned A.G.A. also submitted that
at the behest of the accused, Shamshad, one
Krishna Gopal Sharma kept the applicant,
Ayesha Khatoon along with her brotherDilawar in his house on rent.

7. So far as co-accused, Nakul
Sharma and Kapil are concerned, it is
submitted by learned A.G.A. that they have
been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court and the court below on
the ground that in the offence in question
the only role assigned to them that they
mislead the complainant and police about
the whereabouts of both the deceased and
in the second statement of the complainant
recorded on 24.7.2020 the name of coaccused, Nakul Sharma came into light.
The case of the present applicant is
distinguishable from them.

8. In strong opposition, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
has
drawn the attention of the Court towards
the statement of the co-accused, Shamshad,
recorded before the police, in which he
disclosed that on account of the high
expenses of the deceased Priya, he was
financially bothered and unable to fulfill
her expensive and luxurious hobbies. The
co-accused, Shamshad in his statement
clearly stated that my wife Ayesha @ Soni
has told me that if you don't get rid of
deceased Priya, you will not see my face.
Thereafter, he made a plan along with the
applicant and her brother Dilawar to kill
both the deceased and in the intervening
night of 28/29.3.2021 he killed both the
deceased by strangulating their throat and
with the help of his brother-in-law (SalaDilawar) he buried the dead bodies of both
the deceased in the room of the house.

9. Mr. Singh, learned A.G.A. also
submitted that the present applicant has
pressurized the co-accused for killing the
deceased and in this case she is the main
apple of discord and played an active role
in hatching a conspiracy. Each conspirator
plays his separate part in one integrated and
united effort to achieve the common
purpose. Each one is aware that he has a
part to play in the general conspiracy, to
accomplish the common object. In this case
the applicant had the knowledge or the
reason to believe that the offence had been
committed, she has caused disappearance
of evidence and such act of disappearance
has been done with the intention of
screening
the
offender
from
legal
punishment.
Learned
A.G.A.
lastly
submitted that the necessary ingredients to
constitute the offence are present in the
case, therefore, the applicant does not
deserve any indulgence. In case, the
applicant is released on bail he will misuse
the liberty of bail.

10. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the applicant and
learned Additional Government Advocate
and the fact that it is a brutal and heinous
double murder case, in which a helpless
mother, who blindly trusted upon the coaccused, Shamshad and living with him for
the last five years, and her little daughter
have been flagitiously killed and their dead
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bodies had been hid by the co-accused
Shamshad with the help of his brother-inlaw Dilshad (Sala) in the floor of the room,
which were recovered on the pointing out
of
the
co-accused,
Shamshad
in
a
decomposed
condition.
The
deceased
would never have imagined that the place
where they lived would become their
graveyard. From the Call Detail Report of
the accused persons it is clear that in the
intervening night of 28/29.3.2020 and in
day
time
on
29.3.2021
there
were
continuous
telephonic
conversation
amongst the accused persons and they also
sent messages to each others and the
location of their phones were traced at the
place
of
occurrence,
therefore,
the
involvement of the applicant in the crime
cannot be ruled out. The dead bodies of the
both the deceased have been buried by the
co-accused to destroy the evidence. A
criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in
secrecy and it is difficult to obtain direct
evidence. It is well settled that a man may
tell a lie, but circumstances do not. The
circumstances of this case as mentioned
above are conclusive in nature, which is in
proximity to the time and situation. In view
of above, the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage.

11. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, nature of
offence, the gravity involved therein and
the manner in which the crime has been
committed, no case for bail is made out.

12. The application for bail is hereby
rejected.

13. The observation made herein
above is only limited for the purpose of
disposal of this bail application and will in
no way be construed as an expression on
the merits of the case. The trial court shall
be absolutely free
to arrive
at its
independent conclusions on the basis of
evidence led uninfluenced by anything
expressed in this order.

14. Office is directed to communicate
the facsimile of this order to District Judge,
Meerut and the complainant of this case at
the earliest.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

WRIT A No. 9396 of 2021
with
WRIT A No. 22070 of 2018
with
WRIT A No. 9744 of 2021

Dr. Sushma Chandel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shanshank Shekhar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Addition of adhoc
services for the computation of pensionary
benefits - Civil Service Regulations -
Regulations 368 & 370 - Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Rules
2(3) & 3(8) - U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc
Appointments
(On
Post
Within
the
Purview of the Public Service Commission)
(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001- Uttar
Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension
and Validation Ordinance 2020 (U.P.
Ordinance No. 19 of 2020).

The right to claim pensionary benefits is
now and by virtue of the provisions