Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi

1. Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of accordingly. 2015:DHC:6422-DB Bail Applications 1608/2015 and 1609/2015

1. The present are applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) praying for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 563/20-14 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The applicants are stated to be in custody since 22nd May, 2014. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that public witnesses in the cases have already been examined and discharged by the trial Court. He further submits that only the official witnesses remain to be examined.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has drawn my attention to the order dated 5th December, 2014 in Bail Application Nos. 2629/2014 and 2632/2014 whereby the applicants had been enlarged on regular bail by this Court subject to conditions imposed on them.

4. It is urged by counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that inadvertently at the time the applicants were enlarged on bail, the Court had been misinformed that the father of the deceased Mr. Khushi Ram, PW-1 had already been examined and that PW-2, the mother of the deceased victim was in the process of being examined.

5. It transpired that this Court cancelled the bail granted to the applicants by way of its order dated 23rd December, 2014 in view of the false statement made on behalf of the applicants on affidavit “that the examination of the public witnesses was complete on the date of filing of the present bail applications.”

6. It is now urged on behalf of the applicants that the public witnesses have already been examined and since the applicants have lived in society, they are not a flight risk; nor is there a possibility of tampering with the evidence or approaching the witnesses. In other words, counsel submits that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the applicants in jail any longer.

7. In order to buttress his submission, that once the public witnesses have been examined, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has cited the decision of Kharak Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi decided on 15th January, 2015 in Crl. MC NO. 3253/2014.

8. On the contrary, Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the trial is at the fag end and out of a total 21 prosecution witnesses, 14 have already been examined. The learned APP further submits that only 7 witnesses remain to be examined and the trial Court has listed the case on 7th to 9th September, 2015 for the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses.

9. Learned APP has also urged that the applicants are facing trial in a dowry death case and that the enlargement of the brother-in-law of the deceased victim in an anticipatory bail granted by this Court by way of an order dated 31st July, 2015 does not come to the aid of the applicants since the said accused did not figure in the suicide note left on behalf of the deceased victim.

10. It is also urged on behalf of the State that the regular bail granted to the applicants by this Court by way of an order dated 5th December, 2014 was cancelled since the applicants had falsely averred in the said bail application that the evidence of the public witnesses was complete and consequently, there was no possibility of the applicants influencing the prosecution witnesses.

11. It is lastly urged by learned APP that not only the regular bail granted to the applicants on earlier occasion was cancelled on account of their having made a false statement, but notice had also been issued to the applicants therein under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973.

12. In the present case, it is observed that the deceased victim was married on 13th November, 2013 and died an unnatural death on 21st May, 2014 i.e. within six months of her marriage.

13. Although it would not be appropriate to comment on the testimony of the public witnesses examined at the trial suffice to observe that the clear and unambiguous testimony of the father and mother of the deceased victim/PW- 1 and PW-2 respectively, clearly establishes that the accused/applicants are prima facie guilty of the offence. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has remained unimpeached in cross-examination. In view of this circumstance, the decision relied upon by the applicants is of no avail to them since in Kharak Singh (supra), it was clearly recorded that the testimony of the public witnesses was contradictory in nature and that the said witnesses had contradicted each other on material aspects.