Ranjit Beniwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The present application has been filed by the father-in-law of the deceased under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.362/2013 under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPG, Police Station Malviya Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the sons namely Ravi Beniwal and Sachin Beniwal of the petitioner got married with the sisters of the complainant Sh.Manoj Kumar Parcha on 6^^ December, 2011 namely Deepika and Monika. On 27^^ July, 2013 Deepika vomited blood and she was taken to Saket City Hospital, New Delhi, by her in-laws and she was admitted there. On 28*^ July, 2013 she expired in the Hospital during her treatment. BailAppl. No.150/2015 Page[1] of[6] 2015:DHC:10587

3. On 29^^ July, 2013 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas conducted inquest and post-mortem ofthe deceased Deepika and after her post-mortem, dead body was handed over to in-laws. On the very same day statement of the complainant was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recommended registration of the case on the basis of the statement given by the brother of the deceased Deepika i.e. daughter-in-law of the petitioner.

4. The sons of the petitioner namely Ravi Beniwal and Sachin Beniwal were arrested on 29*^ July, 2013. The petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The application of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 19^*^ August, 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 21®^ December, 2013 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody.

5. PW-1/complainant in his testimony alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner used to keep himself mum and used to remain in the influence of liquor and whenever the daughter of the complainant used to tell about the harassment, he did not pay any intention to solve the issue. The mother of the deceased was examined as PW-4 and she deposed that the petitioner used to say that whatever other in laws were doing, were doing correct. PW-6 Monika who was married with the younger son of the petitioner, had deposed that whenever she and her sister wanted to go to her parents house due to quarrel in house, the petitioner BailAppl. No.150/2015 Page 2of[6] used to tell them to give in writing before going and used to say that if they wanted to leave the house, they will have to go by crossing his dead body. Except the above said allegations there is nothing on record against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 21®* December, 2013. I have gone through the statements of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6. They do not indicate the direct involvement ofthe petitioner. PW- 6, who is admittedly the sister of the deceased and married with the youngerson ofthe petitioner, has mainly stated that her sister wanted to go to her parents due to quarrel in the house. She did not say about the direct involvement of the petitionerfor the death of the deceased. Admittedly, one of the sons of the petitioner Sachin Beniwal, who was arrested on 29*'' July, 2013, has been granted bail by the trial court.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 in paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 45, 46 after recording the facts and law has held as under:- -f "21- In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Bail Appl. No.150/2015 Page 3 of[6]

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left ^ at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste ofimprisonment as a lesson.

24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are •i' economic offences which have resulted in lossto the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be Bai/App/. No.150/2015 4 balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice". -XXX-

40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. - XXX-

45. In Bihar Fodder Scam {Laloo Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372) this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of > passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose.

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Bail Appl. No.150/2015 Page 5 of[6] Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

8. In view of the above discussion and without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner is released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.[1] lac with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the following conditions;-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any threat to any witness and tamper with evidence and shall remain present before Court on the dates fixed and shall take prior permission of the Court in case of unavoidable and unseen circumstances. He would not dispute his identity as an accused. He shall surrender his passport before the Trial Court if he has the same, and shall file his affidavit containing his latest address and all telephone numbers and undertake to inform the Court in case of change of his residence and phone numbers.