Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.01.2023
V K KANJLIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal and Ms. Shivani Pruthi, Advocates
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
Mr. R. Ramachandran, Advocate for Complainant
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 644/2020 u/s 306/34 IPC registered at PS Adarsh Nagar and proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR was registered on 23.09.2020 by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, husband of Poonam Gupta.
3. The FIR was registered against Sunil Sharma (Chief Manager), G.P. Patel (Director since 01.06.2020 holding the additional charge of Secretary, CBIP), G.P. Patel (Director) and the Applicant, Secretary (since 31.05.2020 demitted from CBIP) on the grounds that they pressurized and abetted the wife of the complainant, Mrs. Poonam Gupta (Manager, F. & A.) to commit suicide on 05.05.2020 by hanging herself from chunni to the ceiling fan at her residence, I floor of 110/24 Kewal Park, Azadpur, Delhi.
4. It is stated by Mr. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant failed to forward the complaint made by the deceased, Poonam Gupta and/or take any corrective measures on the said e-mail.
5. The e-mail of 12.04.2020 is reproduced as under: “Respected Sir, With reference to observations given by Mr. Sunil Sharma, Chief Manager, Mr. Vishan Dutt, Chief Manager and Mr. Ashok Kumar, S.P.S. in the trailing mail, it is submitted as follows: The major points raised by Mr. Sunil Sharma & others are about operations of CBIP employees PF Trust. As you are aware that, the CBIP Employees Provident Fund Trust is about 20 year old. It runs as per rules and regulation for CBIP Employees Provident Fund Trust as given in CBIP Personnel Manual under your guidance. Bank accounts and other activities are operating in the same manner as before my joining the CBIP. Further, I wish to mention that in rules and regulation for CBIP Employees Provident Fund Trust as given in CBIP Personnel Manual, there is no provision about meeting of members & conducting of elections. Also, all other activities related to operations of said Trust are governed as per rules and regulation for CBIP Employees Provident Fund Trust as given in CBIP Personnel Manual P.F. contributions are being deposited as and when received from the Board as per your direction/orders from time to time. To my knowledge such ARORA points were never raised by any member of the said Trust during last 10 years (since my joining). Now, I wish to bring in your kind notice about the rude behavior of Mr. Sunil Sharma, Chief Manager towards me since my promotion as Manager. He is very senior to me both in experience and age but his behaviour is extremely unbearable. It's humiliating and created hostile work environment for me. I have informed about the bad behaviour of Mr. Sunil Sharma to you and Director (WR) as well at various occasions in past but to my knowledge no action has been taken against Mr. Sunil Sharma so far. His behaviour towards me is getting worsened. This e-mail is the proof of same. Due to this hostile office environment created by him, I am unwell almost since last one month and my office work productivity has gone down. I am very much disturbed. Now as usual kindly advice whether any reply needs to be given in respect of mail or not. Thanks & high Regards Poonan Gupta”
6. He also states that a complaint of 13.08.2019 was also made which reads as under: “To The Secretary Central Board of Irrigation and Power Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 Sub: Inappropriate behaviour of Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma. With reference to above it is submitted that behaviour of Mr Sunil Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager (Tech), is inappropriate with respect of office decorum, multiple times he made bad comments regarding my leaves, promotion, disbursing cash and ARORA management of office work with staff. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma always taunt the junior staff whether they do each and everything after asking from Ms Poonam Gupta. In this connection it is pointed out that it is the duty of undersigned to guide the staff and give suitable instructions in day to day working. His comments are detrimental for the image of a female officer. His unnecessary taunting and bad remarks affects my peace of mind and working also. Further inspite of positive handling the official matters relating to procedural compliances by me, only hindrances are created by him, which are affecting the working and smooth functioning of CBIP work. In case any official formalities to be complied are informed to him, he always denies, starts shouting and rejects the same. When payments to vendors related to him are not made due to non allocation for payment by Secretary, the same is exposed as if it is the fault of P&A dept only. Inspite of explaining the same to him numerous times that it depends on fund allocation, he does not understand and starts shouting and misbehaving. Such rude and incivility behavior harshly effect the official working beside mental distress to me. After serving CBIP for 9 years with full dedication and commitment, I am getting unwanted treatment from only this officer. Our Society, culture and government is trying its level best for creating a cordial working environment for staff especially for female staff whereas it seems that officers like Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma is totally against the said policies. The above points have been brought to your notice time to time verbally. This is put up to the Management of CBIP for such action as deemed fit. A line of reply for action taken in this regard shall be appreciated. Thanks and Regards Poonam Gupta Manager (F&A) CBIP”
7. He states that the applicant has not acted on the said e-mails and encouraged creation of a hostile environment in office which led to the deceased tendering her resignation on 01.05.2020 and thereafter taking the extreme step of committing suicide on 05.05.2020.
8. He states that the inaction and creation of hostile environment due to the inaction of the appellant comes within the parameters of abetment as defined u/s 107 of the IPC.
9. He has drawn my attention to two judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “X vs. Arun Kumar CK & ANR.” CRL.A. 1834/2022 and “Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttranchal & Anr.” in Crl. Appeal No. 1589/2012.
10. The operative portion of Arun Kumar CK (supra) reads as under: “..........There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is ARORA not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
11. The operative portion of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal,
12. Mr. Singh, learned APP states that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to finding out the links of the private firms in which investments of the Trust were made by the deceased on instructions of the applicant and on the advice of co-accused, Mr. Manish Singhal.
13. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the applicant has opposed the above contentions and stated that the applicant was not the immediate boss of the deceased as far as the Trust is concerned. He was not an office bearer of the Trust.
14. He states that there are two separate organisations, one CBIP and CBIP Trust. The CBIP Trust is an independent body and distinct from CBIP.
15. He states that the applicant had nothing to do with CBIP Trust.
16. He further states that on 12.04.2020, when the e-mail was received from the deceased, it was the height of first wave of COVID 19 pandemic and every person was working from home. Thereafter, the contract of the applicant with CBIP came to an end on 31.05.2020 and hence there was no occasion for him to act on the e-mail of 12.04.2020.
17. Without prejudice to the above, he says that even inaction upon the emails of 12.04.2020 does not bring the Applicant within the purview of Section 107 of the IPC.
18. He has also relied on the e-mail of 01.05.2020 sent by the deceased to the Applicant.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
20. Section 107 IPC reads as under:
21. In the present case, the e-mail of 01.05.2020 which is the resignation of the deceased does not cast any aspersions of creating a hostile environment by the Applicant. In fact, the said e-mail is thanking the Applicant for the years of fulfilling employment. It reads as under: “To The Secretary/The Director (WR) Central Board of Irrigation and Power Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, Delhi-110021 Respected Sir I present to you this letter of resignation from my current position of Manager (F&A) from 01.05.2020 and can be relieved on 31st May, 2020. Also, I ensure you that I will abide the rules of notice period as per CBIP Manual. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the years of fulfilling employment. I have learned a lot during my time here and will be leaving with many great experiences. I hope you realize my quitting is in no way a reflection of your ability to manage, but I must move on for personal reasons. Thanking you Yours sincerely Poonam Gupta Manager (F&A)”
22. The suicide note left by the deceased reads as under: “Sorry Manoj, Prachi and Surabhi. I am going. Due to problem of CBIP PF Trust caused due to investment ARORA falling down which were made on the instructions of Mr. Vijay Kumar Kanjlia and advise of Mr. Manish Singhal. I can‟t bear this tension any more. Moreover, behaviour of Mr. GP Patel, Mr. Sunil Sharma is haunting me for the coming irregularity.”
23. The same also does not seem to be indicative of the Applicant abetting suicide by the deceased.
24. In fact, the said suicide note indicates behaviour of Mr. GP Patel and Mr. Sunil Sharma as haunting the deceased.
25. Mr. Sunil Sharma has been granted regular bail and Mr. GP Patel has been granted anticipatory bail by competent courts of jurisdiction.
26. Even assuming that the Applicant has not acted on the e-mail of 12.04.2020, the same according to me does not come within the purview of „illegal omission‟.
27. „Illegal‟ has been defined in Section 43 IPC which reads as under:-