Narender Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. The petitioner/Narender Meena has filed the present bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 2 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking regular bail in FIR bearing no. RC-06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/ND dated 10.09.2021 registered under sections 302/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) at P.S. CBI/SC-III/New Delhi.

2. The relevant facts of the case as reflecting from record are that FIR bearing no. 0451/2021 dated 09.08.2021 was got registered under sections 302/323/341/34 IPC at P.S. Hari Nagar pertaining to murder of an undertrial prisoner (hereinafter referred to as “UTP”) namely Ankit Gujjar in pursuance of order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi under section 156 (3) of the Code on an application/complaint filed by Geeta Devi, mother of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The allegations as made in FIR are that the petitioner/Narender Meena, the then Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail-3, Tihar Central Prison, New Delhi and other jail officials on 03.08.2021 had brutally beaten UTP Ankit Gujjar and did not provide any medical attention leading to his death in the jail premises. The petitioner/Narender Meena and other officials were harassing UTP Ankit Gujjar to extort money from his BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 3 relatives. The mother and other relatives of UTP Ankit Gujjar filed writ petition W.P. (Crl.) 1558/2021 before this Court seeking transfer of investigation of FIR bearing no.451/2021 registered at P.S. Hari Nagar to CBI and coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.09.2021 transferred the investigation to CBI. Accordingly FIR bearing no. 0451/2021 was re-registered vide RC no.06(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/ND under sections 302/323/341/34 IPC at P.S. CBI/SC-III/New Delhi. The charge sheet was filed on 01.07.2022 before the concerned court under sections 304/323/34 IPC against the petitioner/Narender Meena and subsequently supplementary charge-sheet dated 13.09.2022 was filed before the concerned court against 06 persons including the petitioner/Narender Meena. 2.[1] The petitioner/Narender Meena as per the charge sheet in June 2021 demanded Rs.[5] lakhs from Ankit Gujjar for allowing him to use mobile phone and the deal was finalised at Rs.2,25,000/- and out of which Rs.2,00,000/- were paid. Subsequently Ankit Gujjar had decided not to give balance amount of Rs.25,000/- and the petitioner/Narender Meena due to this reason started to harass him as BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 4 well as the other 02 inmates lodged in his cell namely Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal. The witnesses were examined during the investigation and relevant documents and articles were collected. The investigation was focused on the 05 issues which are (1) use of criminal force/murder of Ankit Gujjar; (2) negligence in providing medical attention to Ankit Gujjar; (3) connivance of Vinay Thakur in not allowing the PCR personnel inside the jail to enquire about the condition of Ankit Gujjar; (4) non-functioning/shutting down of CCTV cameras and (5) extortion/demand of money by jail officials in Tihar Central Prison. 2.[2] Regarding issue (1), statements of four eye-witnesses namely Gurjeet @ Bobby, Gurpreet @ Badal (both inmates lodged in the cell of UTP Ankit Gujjar), Bhisam @ Chintu and Deepak Koli [both sewadars at Chakkar (office of Deputy Superintendent, Internal)] were recorded wherein they primarily stated that a team of jail officials on 03.08.2021 at around 04:00 pm conducted a search of Cell-16, Ward-5A where UTP Ankit Gujjar was lodged along with Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal and one mobile set, one USB cable and one handmade knife were recovered from the cell BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 5 during the search. UTP Ankit Gujjar was not available in the cell at that time as he had been taken to Jhajjar for production in a trial proceeding and was brought back at around 06:30 pm. UTP Ankit Gujjar due to recovery of the prohibited items from the cell was instructed to be shifted to Ward-1 but UTP Ankit Gujjar resisted the directions of the jail authorities and refused to shift to Ward-1 due to presence of rival gang members there. Thereafter heated verbal arguments and fisticuff were exchanged between the petitioner/Narender Meena and UTP Ankit Gujjar at around 07:00 p.m. on 03.08.2021. The petitioner/ Narender Meena as per eye-witnesses subsequent to this incident asked sewadars to make announcements directing whole jail staff to report at Chakkar (internal office). Thereafter the petitioner/Narender Meena along with above named two inmates lodged in Cell-16 of Ward-5A were taken to electrical panja at Chakkar and were brutally beaten for about 30 minutes by the petitioner/Narender Meena along with 05 other jail officials with polycarbonate lathis (danda) and they started to bleed due to assault. UTP Ankit Gujjar was subjected to forceful attack and his vital organs were targeted. The inmates Gurpreet and BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 6 Gurjeet were shifted to Cell-19 of Ward-1 and lodged with another inmate namely Viplav. UTP Ankit Gujjar was shifted to Cell-9 of Ward-1 separately to keep him in isolation and was groaning with pain. 2.[3] UTP Ankit Gujjar after the incident of brutal use of criminal force by the jail officials made a call/complaint for fever and body ache at around 12:30 a.m. on 04.08.2021 through Warder Yogesh and the said complaint was brought to the knowledge of Dr. Sunil Sharma, Medical Officer on duty who made an entry regarding the complaint in the OPD Register of Ward-1 but did not attend the medical call and sent nursing staff who gave pain killers to him and proper description of injuries was not noted in the register. The petitioner/Narender Meena was requested to get the inmates medically examined but he refused to do so. Another inmate/ witness namely Zakir who was lodged in Cell-10 of Ward-1 (adjacent to Cell-9) stated that UTP Ankit Gujjar continued groaning till wee hours of 04.08.2021. UTP Ankit Gujjar In the morning of 04.08.2021 was found lying unconscious in his cell and possibly died in the wee hours of 04.08.2021. The roll call of prisoners was taken around BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 7 05:30 a.m. and Head Warder called UTP Ankit Gujjar from outside his cell to join the roll call but got no response from him. The cell was unlocked and UTP Ankit Gujjar was taken to Jail Hospital, CJ-3, Tihar Central Prison where he was declared brought dead at 07:15 am. The cause of death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was stated to be multiple anti-mortem injuries like abrasions, contusions, lacerations present all over the body and subarachnoid haemorrhages in brain which were blunt force injuries caused by blunt objects like rod, baton or lathi etc. The cause of death of UTP Ankit Gujjar was “haemorrhage consequent upon cumulative effect of multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the body”. UTP Ankit Gujjar as per post-mortem report had died in the intervening night of 03- 04.08.2021. 2.[4] The blood and nail clippings of UTP Ankit Gujjar were collected by Delhi Police and sent to DFS, Rohini, Delhi for DNA profiling. The expert opinion/DNA profile was collected by Delhi Police and provided to CBI for investigation. CBI recovered five polycarbonate lathis with possible traces of blood from the Store of CJ-3 after forensic examination by CFSL Expert. Two more BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 8 polycarbonate lathis with possible traces of blood were recovered from the Factory Panja, Chakkar and Electric Panja located inside CJ-3, Tihar Central Prison, Delhi. Thereafter seven lathis were sent to the CFSL, New Delhi for examination and expert opinion. CFSL has confirmed the presence of blood on two lathis matching with the DNA profiles of UTP Ankit Gujjar, Gurjeet @ Bobby and Gurpreet @ Badal. CFSL report confirms the presence of blood of Ankit Gujjar at the scene of crime. The CCTV cameras installed in jail no.3 were found to be not working at the relevant time at Ward-5A, Electric Panja and Ward-1. The CCTV footage of Deodhi which was ordered to be preserved by the concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate was also not available. The certificate dated 06.08.2021 regarding non-functioning of the CCTV cameras due to technical fault was found given ante-dated. The petitioner/Narender Meena was the overall in-charge of Jail no.3 after the Jail Superintendent and the co-accused persons were his subordinates. In the supplementary chargesheet, details were mentioned in respect of the co-accused to show how they participated in the commission of offence and also did not make any effort to get the injured persons BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 9 medically examined despite having knowledge of their bad condition. The co-accused persons also did not report the incident to the senior officers. The petitioner/Narender Meena was arrested on 05.05.2022 and was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 11.05.2022.

3. The petitioner filed an application for grant of regular bail titled as State V Narender Meena and Others which was dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”). The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the trial court is reproduced as under: …However, keeping in view the seriousness of the case and accused trying to influence the witnesses, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Accused is in such high position and of status that the apprehension of prosecution that he will influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence if released on bail are very strong and cannot be ignored. If the case is proved by prosecution and charge of murder is framed against him as per submissions of CBI, then the punishment will be very severe which may be capital punishment or life imprisonment, so I am of the view that it is not a fit case where accused should be released on bail. The larger interest of the society has to be given preference over the liberty of the accused. The BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 10 incident of beating given to Ankit Gujjar and other two inmates who were under judicial custody were totally unconnected with the incident of alleged slapping and fisticuff taken place inside of the cell as accused in order to take revenge and after preplanning called staff and other co-accused to Chakkar and gave beatings to Ankit Gujjar and also gave instructions not to give him any medical aid, who ultimately expired. Moreover, there is life risk of the accused as admitted by him because of threats received from the associates of gangster deceased Ankit Gujjar if he comes out of the jail. The delay is mostly happening on the part of the accused persons despite the fact that this court is trying to take up the matter on day to day basis. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.

4. The petitioner/Narender Meena being aggrieved filed the present bail application on the grounds that the investigation of the case has been done in an unfair and prejudicial manner compromising the right of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to the petitioner. The petitioner was not being properly heard by the investigative agencies so he filed applications bearing Crl. M.A. 8637-39/2022 in W.P.(Crl.) 1558/2021. CBI sent notice dated 04.05.2022 to the petitioner for joining the investigation on 05.05.2022 and he was arrested on the same day in a hurried manner just because the petitioner sought to enforce his right to fair investigation. CBI or Delhi Police till 05.05.2022 had never BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 11 expressed any apprehension that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation or influencing the witnesses or may flee from justice. The petitioner was arrested due to reason that he approached this court stating that CBI is not conducting fair investigation. 4.[1] The petitioner’s father is suffering from various ailments like brain haemorrhage, arthritis and has recently undergone knee replacement surgery. The parents of the petitioner are old aged and were being looked after by the petitioner. There is no reason for keeping the petitioner in custody as the CBI had already admitted that the investigation qua the petitioner was already complete. The prosecution is relying on 150 witnesses, 159 documents and 24 exhibits and the trial would take considerable time to conclude. There have been serious lapses in the investigation causing great prejudice to the petitioner. 4.[2] The co-accused namely Dinesh Chikara and Deepak Dabas applied for statutory bail under section 167 (2) of the Code. CBI filed a written reply wherein it was stated that there was no evidence against the petitioner regarding the allegation of extortion levelled by UTP Ankit Gujjar or his family. The petitioner has a wife and 02 BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 12 school going children aged 9 and 13 years respectively and is the primary bread earner of the family. The family of the petitioner is suffering in his absence and is at high risk due to threats received from gang members of UTP Ankit Gujjar. 4.[3] The impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from various errors. The trial court dealt with the bail application as if it was conducting a full trial. The trial court has weighed the entire evidence, although incorrectly, at the stage of bail causing prejudice to the petitioner and denial of natural justice to him. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The petitioner suffered several serious injuries as he was brutally beaten by UTP Ankit Gujjar and his cellmates. The petitioner has visited the Jail Hospital, DDU Hospital, GB Pant Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital for treatment several times but still his condition has deteriorated. The petitioner was advised to undergo CT Angiography, thereafter, he was referred to Medical Board by the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner moved an application for grant of interim bail on medical grounds before the trial court which was also dismissed by the trial court vide separate order dated 24.04.2023. The charge sheet qua the petitioner has BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 13 already been filed. There are no prior criminal antecedents/cases/ departmental complaints against the petitioner. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and there are no chances of him fleeing from justice. The petitioner and his family members have a threat to their lives from the gang members of Ankit Gujjar and Rohit Choudhary inside the jail. The petitioner has spent more than one year in jail and has developed neuro-medical ailments. The petitioner is an ordinary citizen having high religious values. The petitioner has joined investigation as and when directed by the IO and supplied all the information. The petitioner is no longer required for interrogation as the investigation is already complete. The petitioner prayed that he be granted regular bail in case arising out of RC-06(S)/2021/CBI/SC- III/ND.

5. The respondent/CBI filed a reply to the present bail application wherein besides mentioning the factual position stated that the petitioner is making vague and irrational submissions. The petitioner was suspended vide enquiry related to death of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The petitioner facilitated use of phones inside the jail in lieu of money which was established during investigation. The petitioner BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 14 slapped UTP Ankit Gujjar who shouted at him saying “aur kaha tak paise doon main tumhe”. The petitioner/Narender Meena was witnessed by four eye-witnesses while he was assaulting UTP Ankit Gujjar and his presence at the scene of crime has been confirmed by other witnesses. The forensic evidence collected during investigation has corroborated the account of the eye-witnesses. The doctors who examined the petitioner, the doctor at Jail Hospital and his colleague who met him after the incident have stated that they did not observe any grievous injury on the body of the petitioner. The sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the Code against the petitioner has been issued by the Competent Authority after scrutinizing the material on record. 5.[1] The doctors who examined the petitioner at DDU Hospital stated that the petitioner had superficial scratches and they did not observe any grievous injury on his body. The family of the petitioner is also provided adequate security after the incident. The complaints have been filed against the petitioner that he is trying to manipulate the witnesses through Jail staff. The petitioner himself is responsible for delaying the trial. The petitioner has been chargesheeted under BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 15 sections 304/323/34 IPC. The trial court passed the impugned order after application of judicial mind and after considering the material on record. The petitioner has filed applications for interim bail on medical grounds. It is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

6. Ms. Rebecca John, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner advanced oral arguments and also filed written submissions. The learned Senior Advocate argued that the petitioner was not present at the scene of crime at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence. The learned Senior Counsel in support of arguments stated that UTP Ankit Gujjar was brought from Jhajjar Court to Tihar Jail no. 3 at 06:30 pm and he was informed by the warder Shiva about his transfer to ward no. 1 but he refused to shift. Thereafter, Warder Shiva informed the petitioner/Narender Meena who at that time was present in Ward no. 5B about refusal of UTP Ankit Gujjar then the petitioner/Narender Meena again asked warder Shiva to ask UTP Ankit Gujjar to comply with orders of Jail Superintendent but he again refused to shift. Thereafter the petitioner/Narender Meena went to Ward no. 5 where heated arguments exchanged between the BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 16 petitioner/Narender Meena and UTP Ankit Gujjar which led to fisticuff between them. It was further stated that thereafter the petitioner/Narender Meena went to Chakkar office and sought permission for raising alarm from Jail Superintendent which was denied. The petitioner/Narender Meena directed sewadars to make announcement for directing jail staff to report at Ward 5A and jail staff was directed to bring UTP Ankit Gujjar and other two inmates Gurjeet and Gurpreet to electrical panja where they were allegedly brutally beaten by the petitioner/Narender Meena and other coaccused for 30 minutes and at 2000 hours, nursing orderly heard screams/noises from electrical Panja but the learned Senior Counsl argued that it was impossible because the petitioner/Narender Meena at 19:59:57 hours called the Jail Superintendent and the petitioner/Narender Meena went to the Jail Hospital as suggested by Jail Superintendent and the petitioner/Narender Meena along with HW Naveen entered the Deodhi area at 20:25:20 hrs. It was further stated and argued that the petitioner/Narender Meena went outside the Jail to Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital at 08:34 pm and was in DDU Hospital at 09:10 pm. It was further stated that the BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 17 petitioner/Narender Meena after treatment from DDU Hospital went to his home and came to CJ-3 on the next day i.e., on 04.08.2023 at 07:01:04 hours after being informed from DS Ved Prakash about the death of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The learned Senior Counsel in support of arguments referred in and out register of Ward no. 5B (D-77). statements of Shiva and Dharam Singh before Delhi Police (D-21), CCTV footage and other documents. The learned Senior Counsel prayed that the present application be allowed and the petitioner be granted regular bail.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI advanced oral arguments and also submitted written submissions. The SPP argued that despite the fact that UTP Ankit Gujjar had been brutally beaten and groaning and screaming in pain and lodged in the cell just adjacent to the Central Jail Hospital, no proper medical attention was provided to him. The witnesses are still to be examined before the trial court and the eye-witnesses have already approached the trial court with the complaint that they were being continuously threatened to change their statements. The petitioner took plea of false alibi in his favour. The perusal of charge BAIL.APPLN.1912/2023 Page 18 sheet and other evidence reflects that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of regular bail. The SPP also referred post mortem report of UTP Ankit Gujjar. The Special Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Deepak Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 8 SCC 559; Ajay Kumar Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 467 and Dudh Nath Pandey V State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 166. 7.[1] The Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav V State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) which was referred by SPP for the respondent observed as under:

22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765], it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and