Full Text
Translation output
$-41,42, 43 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 683/2013
RAJAN SACHDEVA Petitioner
Through: Mr. PradeepNarula, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 683/2013
RAJAN SACHDEVA Petitioner
Through: Mr. PradeepNarula, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Through:
Through:
BAIL APPLN. 684/2013
KAVITA SACHDEVA
Through:
KAVITA SACHDEVA
Through:
VERSUS
Through:
BAIL APPLN. 685/2013
KRISFINA NARULA
Through:
KRISFINA NARULA
Through:
VERSUS
Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub Inspector Ghanshyam Kishore, Police
Station Janakpuri, Delhi Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate
Respondent Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate
Respondent 2013:DHC:6867
Prosecutor for the State with Sub Inspector Ghanshyam Kishore, Police
Station Janakpuri, Delhi Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate
Respondent Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate
Respondent 2013:DHC:6867
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
ORDER o/o 26.04.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 5128/2013 (Exemption)
CrI.M.A. No. 5129/2013 (Exemption)
Crl.M.A. No. 5130/2013 (Exemption)
Exemptionallowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.
Bail AppI. No. 683/2013 (filed bv Raian Sachdeva)
Bail Appl. No. 684/2013 (filed by Kavita Sachdeva)
Bail AppI. No. 685/2013 (filed bv Krishna Narula)
As the subject matter of these applications under Section 438 of Cr.
P.C. arises out of FIR case being FIR No.116/2013, under Section 306 of
IPG, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, New Delhi, by which applicants are seeking concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore the same are heard together and are being disposed oftogether.
The case relates to the incident of suicide committed by Mr. Raman Sachdeva on 15"' October 2012. Applicant - Mr. Rajan Sachdeva happens to be younger brother of the deceased; Applicant - Ms. Kavita Sachdeva is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of deceased; while applicant - Smt. Krishna Narula is v'- aunt (mausi) of the deceased.
It is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased alongwith his family was residing on the second floor ofproperty bearing No.A-2/211, Janakpuri, New Delhi while his brother Rajan Sachdeva has been residing at the first floor ofthe property alongwith his family and his said aunt - Smt. Krishna Narula. Immediately after the said incident, no complaint Was lodged by the Complainant who happens to be the wife ofthe deceased but on 19"' October 2012, while placing some cloths in the almirah, in the said course she found a hand written suicide note left by her deceased husband.
After having read the suicide note she got terrified as the suicide note clearly named these accused persons and two other accused. After laying her hands on the suicide note, the complainant immediately approached the police on
20"' October 2012 andalongwith the complaint, shehadalso handed over an original suicide note. Police had sent the original suicide note to FSL alongwith admitted signatures ofthe deceased so as to get a report about the genuineness of the signatures of the deceased on the suicide note on ll''^
March 2013. As per prosecution, they got the FSL report on 22"^* March
2013 and thereafter, this present FIR dated 13.04.2013 was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons.
$ Mr. Pradeep Namla, Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, submits that all these petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant otherwise neither in the suicide note nor in the complaint, it has-been alleged that these accused persons had instigated the deceased prior to the date ofthe said commission ofsuicide. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mere fact that these persons have been named in the suicide note would not bring the case under Section 107 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 as for constituting abetment the suicide note must reflect mens rea on the part ofthese accused persons or at least some act of instigation or provocation due to which suicide was committed by the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that on abare perusal of the suicide note it is evident that the deceased himselfhad admitted that he was depressed from his life and his main allegation against the petitioners is that some bogus papers were prepared by them for selling ashop and in the same manner these accused persons intended to do something with the residential property which had raised certain astrictions. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner so far as the shop is concerned, the same was sold somewhere in the year 2005 and even in that shop the deceased had no right, title or interest. So far as the bail application ofMs. Krishna Narula is concerned, counsel for applicant says that she is an old lady of 75 years and she has clean antecedents besides the fact that she had no role which could force the victim to commit suicide. As regards application of Kavita
Sachdeva is concerned, argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that she has not even been named by the deceased in the suicide note and allegations against her are only levelled by the complainant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon
ORDER o/o 26.04.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 5128/2013 (Exemption)
CrI.M.A. No. 5129/2013 (Exemption)
Crl.M.A. No. 5130/2013 (Exemption)
Exemptionallowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.
Bail AppI. No. 683/2013 (filed bv Raian Sachdeva)
Bail Appl. No. 684/2013 (filed by Kavita Sachdeva)
Bail AppI. No. 685/2013 (filed bv Krishna Narula)
As the subject matter of these applications under Section 438 of Cr.
P.C. arises out of FIR case being FIR No.116/2013, under Section 306 of
IPG, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, New Delhi, by which applicants are seeking concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore the same are heard together and are being disposed oftogether.
The case relates to the incident of suicide committed by Mr. Raman Sachdeva on 15"' October 2012. Applicant - Mr. Rajan Sachdeva happens to be younger brother of the deceased; Applicant - Ms. Kavita Sachdeva is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of deceased; while applicant - Smt. Krishna Narula is v'- aunt (mausi) of the deceased.
It is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased alongwith his family was residing on the second floor ofproperty bearing No.A-2/211, Janakpuri, New Delhi while his brother Rajan Sachdeva has been residing at the first floor ofthe property alongwith his family and his said aunt - Smt. Krishna Narula. Immediately after the said incident, no complaint Was lodged by the Complainant who happens to be the wife ofthe deceased but on 19"' October 2012, while placing some cloths in the almirah, in the said course she found a hand written suicide note left by her deceased husband.
After having read the suicide note she got terrified as the suicide note clearly named these accused persons and two other accused. After laying her hands on the suicide note, the complainant immediately approached the police on
20"' October 2012 andalongwith the complaint, shehadalso handed over an original suicide note. Police had sent the original suicide note to FSL alongwith admitted signatures ofthe deceased so as to get a report about the genuineness of the signatures of the deceased on the suicide note on ll''^
March 2013. As per prosecution, they got the FSL report on 22"^* March
2013 and thereafter, this present FIR dated 13.04.2013 was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons.
$ Mr. Pradeep Namla, Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, submits that all these petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant otherwise neither in the suicide note nor in the complaint, it has-been alleged that these accused persons had instigated the deceased prior to the date ofthe said commission ofsuicide. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mere fact that these persons have been named in the suicide note would not bring the case under Section 107 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 as for constituting abetment the suicide note must reflect mens rea on the part ofthese accused persons or at least some act of instigation or provocation due to which suicide was committed by the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that on abare perusal of the suicide note it is evident that the deceased himselfhad admitted that he was depressed from his life and his main allegation against the petitioners is that some bogus papers were prepared by them for selling ashop and in the same manner these accused persons intended to do something with the residential property which had raised certain astrictions. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner so far as the shop is concerned, the same was sold somewhere in the year 2005 and even in that shop the deceased had no right, title or interest. So far as the bail application ofMs. Krishna Narula is concerned, counsel for applicant says that she is an old lady of 75 years and she has clean antecedents besides the fact that she had no role which could force the victim to commit suicide. As regards application of Kavita
Sachdeva is concerned, argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that she has not even been named by the deceased in the suicide note and allegations against her are only levelled by the complainant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon
JUDGMENT
ofthe Apex Court in Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC
659.
Complainant of the FIR is present and Investigating Officer of this case is also present to assist the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner and the submissions made on behalf of the State, this court finds that so far as the bail application ofKavita Sachdeva is concerned, she has notbeen named in the suicide note and the allegations levelled against her are only by the complainant, therefore the concession of bail can be grantedto this applicant
- Kavita Sachdeva. Accordingly, In the event ofarrest, applicant - Kavita
Sachdeva be admitted on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of 0,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and she is also directed to cooperate mthe investigation of the case as and when required. In addition, applicant-Kavita Sachdeva will not cause any kind of interference or obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the second floor of the property, which is in occupation of the
1 complainant, who is residing there with her two small children.
This court is also inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail in favour of applicant - Krishna Narula only taking a redeeming feature that she happens to be an old lady of75 years in age even though the fact that she has been named in the suicide note. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, applicant - Krishna Narula be admitted to bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ?50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and cooperating withthe investigation of the caseas and when required. In addition, applicant-Krishna Narula will not cause any kind of interference or obstruction in peaceful enjoyment of the second floor of the property, which is in occupation of the complainant, who is residing there with her two small children.
So far as bail application ofapplicant - Rajan Sachdeva is concerned, this court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail as there are clear allegations not only in the present FIR but he has been specifically named in the suicide note and if the FIR and the suicide note is conjointly read, there are serious allegations against Rajan Sachdeva and the complainant, who is also residing there was a clear witness to all the incidents which were taking place in the house.
In the aforesaid discussion, bail application of applicants Kavita
Sachdeva and Krishna Narula are allowed and the bail application of applicant -Rajan Sachdeva is dismissed.
All three bail applications are disposedof.
Dasti.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J APRIL 26, 2013 pkb
659.
Complainant of the FIR is present and Investigating Officer of this case is also present to assist the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner and the submissions made on behalf of the State, this court finds that so far as the bail application ofKavita Sachdeva is concerned, she has notbeen named in the suicide note and the allegations levelled against her are only by the complainant, therefore the concession of bail can be grantedto this applicant
- Kavita Sachdeva. Accordingly, In the event ofarrest, applicant - Kavita
Sachdeva be admitted on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of 0,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and she is also directed to cooperate mthe investigation of the case as and when required. In addition, applicant-Kavita Sachdeva will not cause any kind of interference or obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the second floor of the property, which is in occupation of the
1 complainant, who is residing there with her two small children.
This court is also inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail in favour of applicant - Krishna Narula only taking a redeeming feature that she happens to be an old lady of75 years in age even though the fact that she has been named in the suicide note. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, applicant - Krishna Narula be admitted to bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ?50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and cooperating withthe investigation of the caseas and when required. In addition, applicant-Krishna Narula will not cause any kind of interference or obstruction in peaceful enjoyment of the second floor of the property, which is in occupation of the complainant, who is residing there with her two small children.
So far as bail application ofapplicant - Rajan Sachdeva is concerned, this court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail as there are clear allegations not only in the present FIR but he has been specifically named in the suicide note and if the FIR and the suicide note is conjointly read, there are serious allegations against Rajan Sachdeva and the complainant, who is also residing there was a clear witness to all the incidents which were taking place in the house.
In the aforesaid discussion, bail application of applicants Kavita
Sachdeva and Krishna Narula are allowed and the bail application of applicant -Rajan Sachdeva is dismissed.
All three bail applications are disposedof.
Dasti.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J APRIL 26, 2013 pkb