Anupam Arora v State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad High Court

 15 May 2013

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 32091 of 2012

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Anupam Arora, involved in case crime no. 171 of 2012, under sections 302/34 IPC, P.S. Brahmpuri, District Meerut.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. Present is the second application for bail on behalf of the applicant in case Cr. No. 171 of 2012 u/s. 302 I.P.C. P.S. Brahmpuri District Meerut. The first application for bail Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 14775 of 2012 has been rejected on merits by the other Bench of this Court by its order dated 30.07.2012. Brief facts need be quoted.

3. The complainant of the case Rakesh Arora is the nephew of Smt. Kiran Arora, since deceased. On 10.4.2012, the complainant received information from Brij Narain Arora that Smt. Kiran Arora has died. No sooner the complainant visited the house of the deceased that the applicant was found present there and he gave information that Smt. Kiran Arora has committed suicide. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that Smt. Kiran Arora in her life time used to tell him that Anupam Arora, the present applicant, his wife Rachana Arora, Satyendra Arora and Sunil Arora used to maltreat and assault her as and when she declined to accept their pressure to sell out the property. The complainant suspected that in order to grab the property of Smt. Kiran Arora, the nominated accused persons including the applicant have murdered Smt. Kiran Arora.

4. The background of the case is that the deceased was the wife of Jagdish Arora. This pair was issueless and during their lifetime they adopted the applicant, who was the member of the same family, on 1.08.2002. After the adoption the applicant started residing with his adoptive parents. During his lifetime Jagdish Narain the adopted father of the applicant executed a will of his entire property in the name of the applicant with the exception that he extended the right to his wife Smt. Kiran to retain and to use the house at Meerut during her life time and after the death of Smt. Kiran this house was also to be transferred in the name of the applicant.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after the death of Jagdish Narain all his landed property and the houses situated at different places stood transferred in the name of the applicant. The applicant could not have any pressing need of money and in any case if he wanted to have money, he could have easily managed it by selling of other properties in his name, than pressurizing Smt. Kiran since decease to consent for the sale of the house at Meerut, in which she was residing.

It has next been argued that after the death of Smt. Kiran, it was the applicant who lodged information at the police station and it was on his information that the inquest proceeding of the dead body of Smt. Kiran was performed and the applicant himself was one of the witness of inquest. It has also been argued that the deceased Smt. Kiran was getting a monthly pension to the tune of Rs.20000=00, which the applicant being the adopted son was enjoying and as such the applicant could not have any motive to commit or to join in murdering Smt. Kiran Arora, his adoptive mother.

6. It has also been argued that after the rejection of first application for bail, the co-accused Sunil Arora has been granted bail. The case against Sunil Arora rests on the same footing and on the ground of parity the applicant also deserves to be released on bail.

7. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application for bail and argued that the applicant is the main accused and the case against him stands on a graver footing than the co-accused, who have been granted bail. During investigation following circumstances appears to have been found:-

1. The applicant being the adoptive son of the deceased was living with the deceased.

2. The applicant gave an information at the Police Station that his mother (Smt. Kiran Arora) was found hanging with a Saree and that she committed suicide. This information was found to be unfounded as the cause of death has been found to be ante mortem throttling. Injuries were also noted over the dead body which could not be explained by the report lodged by the applicant. Thus the applicant appears to have given a false information to the police to mislead them.

3. The applicant was in need of huge amount of money as he wanted to install a factory at Shatabdinagar Meerut.

4. The applicant is said to have made an extrajudicial confession which tells of that it was the applicant who strangulated Smt. Kiran.

5. After the death of Smt. Kiran, the applicant was to get the property as the deceased as per the will of her husband had only the right to live in the house in question during her life alone.

So far as the grounds as it has been advanced on the merit of the case, they appear to have been taken and considered in the earlier application for bail and such grounds cannot be considered to be the fresh grounds for the grant of bail.

8. Now comes the ground of bail to co acused Sunil Arora. Sunil Arora, the co accused in the case does not have any interest in the property which was in the possession of Smt. Kiran, since deceased and as such the argument was open to him that he did not have any motive to commit the murder of Smt. Kiran. The case of the applicant is altogether distinguishable on this count. While deciding the bail application of the co accused Sunil Arora, the Court itself has drawn the distinction of the case of the applicant with co-accused Sunil Arora. Thus the applicant cannot claim bail on the ground of parity as well.

9. The applicant is alleged to have caused the murder of his own adoptive mother, just to expedite the transfer of property to his name. The offence appears to be of a grave nature. Without reflecting anything on the merit of the case the Court does not find a fit case for bail.

10. The application for bail is hereby rejected.

Application dismissed