Mahesh Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim bail for a period of 6 weeks in FIR bearing no. 161/2020, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

4. The applicant has sought interim bail on the ground that he needs to sell his property to meet basic needs of the family and the sale of this property is the only option left with the applicant to support his family whose savings have already drained and the family has now become hand to mouth.

5. The facts of the present case are that on 13.06.2020, at about 10:10 pm,an information was received regarding an unidentified male body found at DDA Ground, Sector 12, Rohini, Delhi.The person was identified as Ashish Gupta by his younger brother. During investigation, the present accused/applicant was arrested on the basis of investigation and other circumstantial evidence. It was found that the applicant had disclosed to the police that his real sister and her husband had adopted a 7 days old daughter of his younger brother about one and half year back. Applicant had noticed the child with the deceased in an inappropriate condition twice and had objected to the same. Thereafter, he was asked to return the child to his family, however, since the deceased had adopted the child legally, he had refused to return the child, and thereafter, he had planned to murder him. It is alleged that the applicant had offered Rs.50,000/- to one Lokesh Garg to help him in murdering his brother-in-law and had asked him to arrange a mobile phone and a car. On 12.06.2020, applicant had spoken to the deceased on his mobile phone and told him that there was a flat for sale at Rohini and if he would invest, he can get the same on profit.The deceased had agreed to the proposal, and the applicant had picked him from Anand Parbat, opposite Kamal Hotel on 13.06.2020 at 2:30 pm along with Lokesh Garg. He had brought plastic rope, small towel and liquid in a bag. Lokesh Garg was driving the car and Ashish Gupta was sitting on the left front seat of the car and the present applicant was sitting on the rear seat of the car. The applicant had then confirmed it from the deceased whether he had told anything to his wife as to where he was going, to which the deceased had responded that he had not told anything at home. Thereafter, on reaching the DDA flats near Japanese Park, Rohini, he was murdered. The accused persons had dumped the dead body in the bushes and had taken away the personal articles i.e., gold chain, gold ring, wrist watch, spectacles, mobile phone, footwear, purse containing money and debit card, etc. of the deceased. During police custody, the articles mentioned above were recovered from the possession of present applicant/accused Mahesh Gupta from his office on 27.06.2020 and the rope and small towel used in commission of crime were recovered at the instance of Mahesh Gupta from a vacant plot at Nilothi, Delhi. The mobile phone used by the applicant to speak to his sister on 13.06.2020, and Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.50,000/- paid to Lokesh Garg were also recovered from the house of Lokesh Garg along with Alto car used in the crime.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the present case is a case of false implication and is based on circumstantial evidence alone and, therefore, bail be granted to him. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FSL report does not support the prosecution case. It is stated that the towel alleged to have been used in the crime in question, allegedly drenched in liquid was not proved to be used in the crime, and further that the rope was also not sent to FSL. It is also stated that the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and the investigation has been biased. It is submitted that present interim bail application be allowed considering the grounds mentioned in the application and the financial status of the applicant and his family.

7. Per Contra, Learned APP for State opposes the present application and submits that this application is abuse of process of law since the applicant has filed multiple bail applications which have been rejected and one bail application was also rejected on 12.09.2022 and no fresh circumstance has been arisen for grant of bail. It is stated that according to the CDR of mobile phones, both the accused persons were regularly talking to each other on mobile phones on the date of incident, and the location of the mobile phone used by Lokesh Garg was near the scene of crime. It is also stated that PW Mohd. Chand had seen both the accused persons with the deceased on 13.06.2020 just before the murder. It is further submitted that there are multiple statements of the public witnesses that accused Mahesh Gupta had borrowed about Rs. 32 lakhs from the deceased and had not returned the same. It is also submitted that four public witnesses have been examined, who have supported the prosecution case.

8. I have heard arguments of both the parties at length and have perused the material placed on record.

9. This Court is of the opinion that it is not disputed that the present applicant has filed multiple bail and interim bail applications on one ground or the other which have been dismissed on several occasions by the learned Trial Court. Earlier, his bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.04.2021 before this Court. Interim bail application was dismissed by this Court on 19.07.2021 and 12.09.2022. The applicant is also involved in another murder case arising out of FIR bearing NO. 100/2008, registered under Sections 365/302/201/34 IPC at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi which is pending trial.

10. The FSL report also reveals that ligature strangulation marks found on the body of deceased could have been caused by the plastic rope examined by him. The CDR of both the accused persons prove their interaction on the date of incident. The location of the mobile phone also shows the location of accused at the place of murder. The belongings of the deceased were recovered from the office of the applicant. Some other articles connected with the commission of crime were also recovered at the instance of applicant from a vacant plot. Therefore, the FSL report and the other scientific evidence as well as the statements of the witnesses point out towards commission of offence, prima facie, by the present applicant. Other material and public witnesses are yet to be examined in the present case.

11. The ground taken by the applicant in this application for grant of interim bail, that he needs to sell his land for the purpose of generating money for his family, does not find favour with this Court, as the close relatives of the applicant who are witnesses are yet to be examined in the present case. This Court also notes that applicant is also involved in another murder case in which he is facing trial and, therefore, tampering of evidence and influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the ground for interim bail before this Court is not urgent or necessary to convince this Court to grant interim bail. The property, he desires to sell can be sold by executing a power of attorney/GPA in favour of his wife or any other relative from the jail also.

12. Considering the above discussion, no ground for grant of interim bail is made out. The application stands rejected accordingly.

13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.