Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 1339/2015
MAHESH KUMAR
BAILAPPLN. 1339/2015
MAHESH KUMAR
VERSUS
STATE GNCT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1340/2015
VIJAY SINGH
VIJAY SINGH
VERSUS
BAILAPPLN. 1341/2015
RAMBIR SINGH
RAMBIR SINGH
VERSUS
BAILAPPLN. 1342/2015
RADHEY SHYAM
RADHEY SHYAM
VERSUS
BAILAPPLN. 1343/2015
SUNIL KUMAR
Petitioner Respondent 2015:DHC:10676
SUNIL KUMAR
Petitioner Respondent 2015:DHC:10676
VERSUS
STATE GNCT OF DELHI Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1344/2015
NAVEEN TEOTIA Petitioner
NAVEEN TEOTIA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE GNCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Abhimanyu Kampani, Mr.SatyamThareja, Advocates for petitioner .
Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel withMr.M.P.Singh, APP, MrJamal Akhtar and Mr.Amrit Singh, Advocates for the State.
Mr.Sukhwinder Singh, ACP Crime Branch.
Through: Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Abhimanyu Kampani, Mr.SatyamThareja, Advocates for petitioner .
Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel withMr.M.P.Singh, APP, MrJamal Akhtar and Mr.Amrit Singh, Advocates for the State.
Mr.Sukhwinder Singh, ACP Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
14.08.2015 All the applications have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.
By order dated 10.07.2015, interim protection was given to the petitioners and it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against them till the final hearing ofthe applications.
On secret information that a habitual chain snatcher could be apprehended at Golf Club, the police authorities went to the Golf Club and from the parking area, arrested Vicky (deceased). While the deceased was beingbrought to the police station, on way, his health situation deteriorated.
Information about this was communicated by one of the members of the y police team to the concernedpolice station. Vicky, thereafter, died.
After post mortem, report of the medical board of three doctors was obtained. The Board was of the opinion that the death was caused by acute pancreatitis.
Considering the death to be in suspicious circumstances, a Magisterial
Inquiry was conducted on the request of the police. A second opinion of the
Board of seven Doctors of AIIMS Hospital was obtained. The second opinion stipulated that the death was definitely caused due to acute pancreatitis but in the absence of any other investigation report available on record, the etiology could not be determined. However, the report indicates that there could be a possibility oftrauma for causing acute pancreatitis.
Thereafter, FIR was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners on 30.05.2008 under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the
IPG.
During the course of investigation, two of the eye-witnesses namely
Twinkle and Pawan Kumar, the former being a relative of the deceased and the later being an employee of the Golf Glub were examined. Not, finding any clue with respect to the cause of death of the deceased, closure report was filed.
Such closure report was not acceptable to the learned Magistrate and ftirther investigation was directed by order dated 17.09.2010.
In the ftirther investigation, some of the witnesses testified to the fact that the deceased was taken away by police men and while nabbing him, he
-/ i was assaulted by slaps.
A third opinion was obtained from the Medical Board wherein on a poser as to whether pancreatitis could be caused due to fall on road or otherwise, the answer was in the affirmative. The opinion indicated that it could be produced by a blunt force like fall and striking against hard surface.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter the charge sheet was submitted under Section 304 with aid of Section 34 of the
IPG.
The charges in the case have not yet been framed.
Considering the fact that there was no external injury on the person of deceased and there has been dispute about the cause of death, this Court is inclined to accord the privilege ofanticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Needless to say that the petitioners would not delay the conclusion of trial and would participate in the trial in right earnest, considering that they are police authorities who are normally looked up to for the safety ofgeneral public.
The petitioners on their surrender before the learned Trial Court, would be released on their ftimishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
If the Trial Court finds that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the police officers/petitioners/accused persons to delay the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and cancel their bail and take them into custody forthwith.
The petitioners would be present on all dates before the Trial court and their absence on any date fixed, withoutany reasonable cause, would be viewed very seriously by the Trial Court.
All the applications are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 14,2015 ab
14.08.2015 All the applications have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.
By order dated 10.07.2015, interim protection was given to the petitioners and it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against them till the final hearing ofthe applications.
On secret information that a habitual chain snatcher could be apprehended at Golf Club, the police authorities went to the Golf Club and from the parking area, arrested Vicky (deceased). While the deceased was beingbrought to the police station, on way, his health situation deteriorated.
Information about this was communicated by one of the members of the y police team to the concernedpolice station. Vicky, thereafter, died.
After post mortem, report of the medical board of three doctors was obtained. The Board was of the opinion that the death was caused by acute pancreatitis.
Considering the death to be in suspicious circumstances, a Magisterial
Inquiry was conducted on the request of the police. A second opinion of the
Board of seven Doctors of AIIMS Hospital was obtained. The second opinion stipulated that the death was definitely caused due to acute pancreatitis but in the absence of any other investigation report available on record, the etiology could not be determined. However, the report indicates that there could be a possibility oftrauma for causing acute pancreatitis.
Thereafter, FIR was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners on 30.05.2008 under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the
IPG.
During the course of investigation, two of the eye-witnesses namely
Twinkle and Pawan Kumar, the former being a relative of the deceased and the later being an employee of the Golf Glub were examined. Not, finding any clue with respect to the cause of death of the deceased, closure report was filed.
Such closure report was not acceptable to the learned Magistrate and ftirther investigation was directed by order dated 17.09.2010.
In the ftirther investigation, some of the witnesses testified to the fact that the deceased was taken away by police men and while nabbing him, he
-/ i was assaulted by slaps.
A third opinion was obtained from the Medical Board wherein on a poser as to whether pancreatitis could be caused due to fall on road or otherwise, the answer was in the affirmative. The opinion indicated that it could be produced by a blunt force like fall and striking against hard surface.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that thereafter the charge sheet was submitted under Section 304 with aid of Section 34 of the
IPG.
The charges in the case have not yet been framed.
Considering the fact that there was no external injury on the person of deceased and there has been dispute about the cause of death, this Court is inclined to accord the privilege ofanticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Needless to say that the petitioners would not delay the conclusion of trial and would participate in the trial in right earnest, considering that they are police authorities who are normally looked up to for the safety ofgeneral public.
The petitioners on their surrender before the learned Trial Court, would be released on their ftimishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
If the Trial Court finds that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the police officers/petitioners/accused persons to delay the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and cancel their bail and take them into custody forthwith.
The petitioners would be present on all dates before the Trial court and their absence on any date fixed, withoutany reasonable cause, would be viewed very seriously by the Trial Court.
All the applications are disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 14,2015 ab
JUDGMENT