Amit Mishra v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in FIR No.183/2023 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 498A, 304B & 34 IPC.

2. The facts, as stated by the prosecution, are that on 11.02.2023 information was received regarding the incident through a PCR call and DD No-61A was registered and the same was assigned to SI Ankit for taking further necessary action. It is stated that SI Ankit along with the staff reached the scene of crime, i.e. Ist floor House No.334, Gali No-7, Rao vihar Nangloi, Delhi. It was revealed that a lady namely Kiran w/o Amit Mishra (Petitioner herein) has hanged herself with her dupatta from the window Grill. The information about the suicide was provided to the SDM and the family of the deceased through phone call. The body of the deceased was sent to SGH, Mangolpuri. It is stated that the statements of the father and brother of the deceased were recorded by the SDM Punjabi Bagh on 13.02.2023. In his statement, the father of the deceased stated that the family of the Petitioner demanded a bike, a gold chain, a ring and 2.[5] lakh cash from the deceased. He further stated that the in-laws of the deceased were demanding dowry of Rs.[2] lakhs and were assaulting and harassing the deceased mentally and physically for the same. The father of the deceased stated that because of this harassment and mental torture, the deceased committed suicide. On the statement of her father of the deceased, FIR No.183/2023 was registered against the Petitioner and his family members under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi.

3. Petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2023. However, the family members of the Petitioner have not been arrested. Charge-sheet has been filed.

4. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of Regular Bail.

5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that charge-sheet has been filed and now there is no threat of Petitioner tampering with evidence. He states that the Petitioner is in custody for one year and two months now and no purpose would be served in keeping the Petitioner in further incarceration.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State contends that there are statements against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is likely to give inducement and threat to the witnesses and, therefore, the Petitioner ought not be given bail.

7. Heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Nominal Roll has been filed and it shows that the Petitioner is in custody for one year and two months now. Charge-sheet has been filed and, therefore, the investigation is complete.

9. Looking at the strata from which the Petitioner comes, it cannot be said that the Petitioner would be in a position to tamper with evidence or give any threat to the family of the deceased. The family of the deceased is well-knit and the Petitioner is not in a position to exert any pressure or given any kind of threat to the family of the deceased.

10. No doubt, the offences alleged against the Petitioner is serious in nature but that alone cannot be a reason to deny bail to the Petitioner.

11. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Supreme Court laid down the parameters for granting or refusing the grant of bail which are as under: “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 fleeting, if released on bail; v. character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; vi. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii. Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

12. Applying the said parameters to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be prudent to keep the Petitioner behind bars for an undefined period of time at this stage. The Petitioner has roots in the society, and, therefore, there is no danger of him absconding or fleeing.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, without commenting on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.

14. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner on the following conditions: a) The Petitioner shall furnish a security in the sum of ₹50,000/with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. b) The Petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court. c) The petitioner is directed to attend all the proceedings before the Trial Court. d) The Petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station every Wednesday at 10:30 AM and should be released after completing all the formalities within an hour. e) The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. f) The Petitioner has given his address in the memo of parties as House No. 334, 1st Floor, Gali No.7, Rao Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi. The Petitioner is directed to continue to reside at the same address. In case there is any change in the address, the Petitioner is directed to intimate the same to the IO. g) The Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses. h) The Petitioner is directed not to contact the family members of the deceased or give any kind of threat to the family members of the deceased. i) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the petitioner.

15. It is made clear that the observations made in this Order are only for the purpose of grant of bail and cannot be taken into consideration during the trial.