Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI bail APPLN.3082/2019 Petitioner
Through Mr.K.Singhalwith Ms.ShilpaG.
Mittal,Advs.
Through Mr.K.Singhalwith Ms.ShilpaG.
Mittal,Advs.
VERSUS
. ^ Respondent
<5TATB ■■■ L, Through Mr.AmitChadha,APPforState.
Insp.Ashok Kumar Singh, SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS
Farsh Bazar Mr.Prabhakar Narain,Adv.for complainant.
<5TATB ■■■ L, Through Mr.AmitChadha,APPforState.
Insp.Ashok Kumar Singh, SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS
Farsh Bazar Mr.Prabhakar Narain,Adv.for complainant.
X BAIL APPLN.3083/2019
DINESH K.SinghalwithMs.Shilpa.G.
Mittal,Advs.
DINESH K.SinghalwithMs.Shilpa.G.
Mittal,Advs.
VERSUS
^ Respondent ^ Through Mr.AmitChadha,APPforState.
SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS.Farsh Bazar complainant bail APPLN.3207/2019
Petitioner SONIA@ K.Singhalwith Ms.ShilpaG.
Mittal, Advs.
SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS.Farsh Bazar complainant bail APPLN.3207/2019
Petitioner SONIA@ K.Singhalwith Ms.ShilpaG.
Mittal, Advs.
VERSUS
Respondent state Through Mr.AmitChadha,APPforState.
SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS 2020:DHC:3864
Farsh Bazar complainant
SHO/Farsh Bazar,SIDheer Singh,PS 2020:DHC:3864
Farsh Bazar complainant
CORAM*
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESURESH KUMAR KAIT
0/„ 25.02.2020
Thepresentpetitions arefiled under Section438Cr.P.C.for grantof anticipatory bailinFIRNo.340/2019dated 11.09.2019registeredatPolice
Station Farsh Bazar,DistrictShahdara.
Case ofpetitionersisthatdeceased Shivangi didinter caste marriage with Prashant(main accused) as they were in love with each other and parents of the deceased(Shivangi)were not accepting Prashantas their son-in-law ashe belongedto othercaste.Moreover,theypressurizedherto leave Prashant by getting divorced, whereas Prashant's family members
(petitioner'sherein)had willingly& wholeheartedly accepted Shivangi as their daughter-in-law.When Shivangitold herparentsthatifthey were not readytoaccepthermarriagewithPrashant,thenshewouldshiftwithherin- laws who had no problem with their marriage.Thereafter,in order to save theirhonour,parentsofthedeceased held a meeting withPrashant'sparents and on 22.07.2018, a social gathering/function was jointly organized by parents ofboth sides.
Itis notin disputethatasper CFSLReport,the weaponi.e..32bore revolver is afire-arm andin working condition. Itis also opined thatthree
,32 fired cartridge cases and one .32 fired bullet(got recovered by the
AutopsySurgeon)werefiredfromtherecovered.32borerevolver.Itisalso opinedthatNitrate,mainconstituentofGSR,isdetectedonthegauzepiece collectedfromlefthandandrighthandofaccusedPrashantKasanaandalso around the hole created in the bed-sheet.Itis forther opined thatthe bed- sheet could have been pierced due to passage ofthe bullet fired from the fire-armfrom close range. |
In chargesheet,itisstated thattillnow thereis neitheranycomplauit nor any document which suggests harassment by Simran @ Soniya
(petitioner in Bail Appln.3207/2019). However, her name has been mentionedasaccusedincolumn11ofchargesheetwithoutarrest,asshehad been grantedinterim protectiontill 16.12.2019.
In chargesheet,it is fiirther stated that as per investigation,there are sufficientevidences whichhavecomeon recordtofile chargesheetagainst accused person Prashant Kasana(husband,ofthe deceased)u/s 302/304-
B/498-A/201/34IPC &25/27 Arms Act and against Simran@Sonia u/s
304-B/498-A/34IPC.Itisalso statedthatinvestigation inthiscaseistobe carried outonthebasis ofCDR Analysis ofaccusedpersons,deceasedand witnesses.
Atthis stage,learned APP,on instructionsfrom the10,submits that ballisticreporthasconfirmedthatthebulletwhichkilledShivangiwasfired by accused Prashant.
Learned APP has opposed present petitions by submitting that petitionersarestill absconding,thus,atthisstage,anticipatorybailmaynot begrantedtosister-in-law andin-lawsof deceased.
It is not in dispute that Prashant Kasana(husband ofdeceased)has killed deceased and before her death, there was no complaint regarding dowryandharassmentagainstpetitioners. Moreover,nothingwasrecovered fromthe petitioners during interrogation.^
It is also notin dispute that marriage between PrashantKasana and deceasedwasalovemarriageandinter-castemarriage.However,parentsof both sidesjointly organizedtheir marriage.
In case of CouH On its Own Motion Vs. Central Bureau o^
Investigation:2004(72)DRJ629,thisCourtheldthatthearrestofaperson for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences, which could be investigatedwithoutarrestbythepolice,cannotbebrookedbyanycivrhzed society.Thus,directions wereissuedtothe criminalcourts and one ofthe direction is that;
"The Court shall on appearance ofan accusedrn non- bailable offence who has neither been arrested by the police/Investigating Agency during '>t^<'^t'gaUon nor producedincustodyasenvisagedinSechonI70 CrF.L. call upon the accused to move a bad apphcationrfthe accuseddoes not move iton his own and release him on bailas the circumstance ofhis having not been arrested during investigation or not beingproduced'n custody is itselfsufficient to entitle him to be released on ball.
Reason is simple.Ifaperson has been at forseveralyearsand has not been even arrested during investigation, to send him to Jail by refusing bad suddenly, merely because charge-sheet has beenfiled is againstthe basicprinciplesgoverninggrantorrefusal f
Keeptj^'in view aforesaid facts and without commenting on the prosecutioncase,Iamoftheconsideredviewthatpetitionersdeservebad.
Accordingly,petitionersshallappearbeforeTrialCourtandtheyshall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- each with one surety ofthe like amountto the satisfaction of
Trial Court.
Before parting with the order,it is relevant to mention that nothing containedinthis ordershallbeconstrued asan expressiononthe meritsof the case.
Petitions are,accordingly,allowedand disposed of.
Order dastiundersignatures ofthe CourtMaster.
SURESrfKXJMAR KAIT,J FEBRUARY 25,2020/ms
0/„ 25.02.2020
Thepresentpetitions arefiled under Section438Cr.P.C.for grantof anticipatory bailinFIRNo.340/2019dated 11.09.2019registeredatPolice
Station Farsh Bazar,DistrictShahdara.
Case ofpetitionersisthatdeceased Shivangi didinter caste marriage with Prashant(main accused) as they were in love with each other and parents of the deceased(Shivangi)were not accepting Prashantas their son-in-law ashe belongedto othercaste.Moreover,theypressurizedherto leave Prashant by getting divorced, whereas Prashant's family members
(petitioner'sherein)had willingly& wholeheartedly accepted Shivangi as their daughter-in-law.When Shivangitold herparentsthatifthey were not readytoaccepthermarriagewithPrashant,thenshewouldshiftwithherin- laws who had no problem with their marriage.Thereafter,in order to save theirhonour,parentsofthedeceased held a meeting withPrashant'sparents and on 22.07.2018, a social gathering/function was jointly organized by parents ofboth sides.
Itis notin disputethatasper CFSLReport,the weaponi.e..32bore revolver is afire-arm andin working condition. Itis also opined thatthree
,32 fired cartridge cases and one .32 fired bullet(got recovered by the
AutopsySurgeon)werefiredfromtherecovered.32borerevolver.Itisalso opinedthatNitrate,mainconstituentofGSR,isdetectedonthegauzepiece collectedfromlefthandandrighthandofaccusedPrashantKasanaandalso around the hole created in the bed-sheet.Itis forther opined thatthe bed- sheet could have been pierced due to passage ofthe bullet fired from the fire-armfrom close range. |
In chargesheet,itisstated thattillnow thereis neitheranycomplauit nor any document which suggests harassment by Simran @ Soniya
(petitioner in Bail Appln.3207/2019). However, her name has been mentionedasaccusedincolumn11ofchargesheetwithoutarrest,asshehad been grantedinterim protectiontill 16.12.2019.
In chargesheet,it is fiirther stated that as per investigation,there are sufficientevidences whichhavecomeon recordtofile chargesheetagainst accused person Prashant Kasana(husband,ofthe deceased)u/s 302/304-
B/498-A/201/34IPC &25/27 Arms Act and against Simran@Sonia u/s
304-B/498-A/34IPC.Itisalso statedthatinvestigation inthiscaseistobe carried outonthebasis ofCDR Analysis ofaccusedpersons,deceasedand witnesses.
Atthis stage,learned APP,on instructionsfrom the10,submits that ballisticreporthasconfirmedthatthebulletwhichkilledShivangiwasfired by accused Prashant.
Learned APP has opposed present petitions by submitting that petitionersarestill absconding,thus,atthisstage,anticipatorybailmaynot begrantedtosister-in-law andin-lawsof deceased.
It is not in dispute that Prashant Kasana(husband ofdeceased)has killed deceased and before her death, there was no complaint regarding dowryandharassmentagainstpetitioners. Moreover,nothingwasrecovered fromthe petitioners during interrogation.^
It is also notin dispute that marriage between PrashantKasana and deceasedwasalovemarriageandinter-castemarriage.However,parentsof both sidesjointly organizedtheir marriage.
In case of CouH On its Own Motion Vs. Central Bureau o^
Investigation:2004(72)DRJ629,thisCourtheldthatthearrestofaperson for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences, which could be investigatedwithoutarrestbythepolice,cannotbebrookedbyanycivrhzed society.Thus,directions wereissuedtothe criminalcourts and one ofthe direction is that;
"The Court shall on appearance ofan accusedrn non- bailable offence who has neither been arrested by the police/Investigating Agency during '>t^<'^t'gaUon nor producedincustodyasenvisagedinSechonI70 CrF.L. call upon the accused to move a bad apphcationrfthe accuseddoes not move iton his own and release him on bailas the circumstance ofhis having not been arrested during investigation or not beingproduced'n custody is itselfsufficient to entitle him to be released on ball.
Reason is simple.Ifaperson has been at forseveralyearsand has not been even arrested during investigation, to send him to Jail by refusing bad suddenly, merely because charge-sheet has beenfiled is againstthe basicprinciplesgoverninggrantorrefusal f
Keeptj^'in view aforesaid facts and without commenting on the prosecutioncase,Iamoftheconsideredviewthatpetitionersdeservebad.
Accordingly,petitionersshallappearbeforeTrialCourtandtheyshall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- each with one surety ofthe like amountto the satisfaction of
Trial Court.
Before parting with the order,it is relevant to mention that nothing containedinthis ordershallbeconstrued asan expressiononthe meritsof the case.
Petitions are,accordingly,allowedand disposed of.
Order dastiundersignatures ofthe CourtMaster.
SURESrfKXJMAR KAIT,J FEBRUARY 25,2020/ms
JUDGMENT