Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by a former Indian Information Service officer, who had been accused of murdering his wife, a lawyer by profession, in 2023, the Single Judge Bench of Siddharth, J. after considering the nature of the offence and other relevant factors, allowed his bail application, subject to certain conditions.
Background
According to the prosecution’s case, the victim, who had been battling cancer for several years, failed to respond to calls on her mobile phone for an entire day. Concerned for her well-being, her brother visited her residence. Upon arrival, he found the outer gate of the house locked. Accompanied by one of his sister’s friends, both attempted to scale the boundary wall. However, when a neighbor raised objections to their actions, they decided against entering the premises and instead contacted the accused, the victim’s husband, by phone. The accused informed them that he was at Lodhi Road and would reach the house within an hour.
Given the circumstances, and considering that the victim was a cancer patient, her brother, suspecting that something might have happened to his sister, immediately called the police. Within 5-10 minutes, the police arrived at the scene. In the presence of the working president of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA), the police broke open the outer door lock. They then proceeded to break the lock of the lobby door. Upon entering, they discovered the victim’s body lying in the bathroom attached to her bedroom, with multiple injuries visible on her face.
An autopsy, conducted on 11-09-2023, revealed that the victim had suffered three contusions and a dislocation of her right shoulder joint, which were classified as ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to manual strangulation.
After recording the informant’s statement, a site plan was prepared based on his pointing out. During the investigation, the police successfully located the accused inside a storeroom on the first floor after breaking the door lock. A memo of arrest was prepared, although the specific time and date of the arrest were not mentioned in the relevant column.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the accused, in his Indian passport, had listed his place of birth as Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, and his date of birth as 06-03-1964. However, in contradiction, the accused claimed his date of birth to be 06-03-1962 and his place of birth as Sunderland, United Kingdom.
Furthermore, it was noted that the accused and his deceased wife were the only residents in the house where the deceased’s body was found. As such, the burden of proving facts within the accused’s knowledge rested entirely on him. The accused has failed to provide a plausible explanation to discharge this burden and clarify the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased.
The Court referred to the statement of witness, a police personnel who was among the first to reach the scene. He categorically stated that the entire house, where the accused and his deceased wife were residing, was bolted and locked from the inside. A forcible entry was made into the house, where the deceased’s body was found in the bathroom. The statements of Constables, on duty in the Police Response Vehicle, also corroborated how the deceased’s body was discovered in the acused’s house. The deceased had sustained multiple external injuries caused by blunt force, and the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to manual strangulation.
The Court also took into account the statement of the house help of the accused, who mentioned that she was specifically told not to come to work on the date of the incident. Moreover, she stated that the accused did not have a cordial relationship with his deceased wife.
Furthermore, the statements of other witnesses further established that the accused was apprehended from his house, and that he did not share a good relationship with his wife, reinforcing the suspicion surrounding the circumstances of the death.
The Court further noted that the deceased had lodged an FIR against the accused in 2016, for offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). This fact was duly recorded by the investigating officer in the chargesheet of the present case. The relationship between the accused and his son who resides in the United States, was also found to be strained. The accused had sent multiple emails to his son demanding large sums of money and even threatened to disown him if his demands were not met.
The Court highlighted that the statements of witnesses helped establish a potential motive for the accused in the murder of his wife. According to their testimony, the deceased was strongly opposed to the accused’s decision to sell the house. On 10-09-2023, when the vendee and other witnesses arrived to take measurements for the sale agreement, the deceased realized that the house had already been sold, and the accused had received Rs. 3 crores from the sale proceeds. When the deceased confronted the accused about this, he allegedly committed the cold-blooded murder.
Further, the Court stressed that corroborating this motive, the statement of the President of the Residents Welfare Association was also crucial. It indicated that the accused intended to flee the country with the money from the house sale. Additionally, CCTV footage from a neighboring house, collected by the investigating officer, revealed that the accused had not left his house on the date of the incident. The footage showed that he had locked himself inside the house after allegedly committing the murder, presumably to evade arrest.
The Court acknowledged the statement of the caretaker of the CCTV cameras at Sector 30, who confirmed that on the date of the incident, he was called by the police officers to review the footage from the camera installed. After analyzing the footage from morning till evening, it was revealed that the accused had not left the house on that day. This led the police officers to become suspicious, resulting in them breaking open the locks of the house and arresting him from inside the storeroom.
The Court also noted that the deceased had been diagnosed with cancer but had successfully undergone treatment and was cancer-free by 2015. Thus, there was no basis for her to have visited the U.K. or the U.S.A., as mentioned in the accused’s bail application.
The Court observed that the accused had been in jail since 11-09-2023, and the current status of the trial was not brought to light by either party. The Court also noted that the accused was not a hardened criminal and did not pose a significant threat to society. Furthermore, the accused had sufficient assets and was not considered a flight risk. He also appeared to be a senior citizen.
Taking into account the nature of the offence, the evidence presented, the complicity of the accused, and the submissions of the parties involved, the Court found merit in the accused’s arguments. The Court also considered the overcrowding in jails and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Referring to the dictum in the case of Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393 , the Court decided to grant bail subject to certain conditions without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
[Nitin Nath Singh v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 4075, decided on 27-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Applicant:– Navnath Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party:– Anshul Pathak,Atharva Dixit,G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
