Full Text
Translation output
(I HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.440/2019 and Crl.M.A.3892/2019
SAJAN Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravindra Narayan,Adv.with Mr.Raghav Narayan,Adv.
BAIL APPLN.440/2019 and Crl.M.A.3892/2019
SAJAN Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravindra Narayan,Adv.with Mr.Raghav Narayan,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OFDELHI Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State with Insp.Satish Rana,SHO,SI
Nagender Nagar,PS Govindpuri.
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State with Insp.Satish Rana,SHO,SI
Nagender Nagar,PS Govindpuri.
BAIL APPLN.441/2019 and Crl.M.A.3893/2019
SANDHYA GUPTA Petitioner
SANDHYA GUPTA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF NOTOF DELHI Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP forthe
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP forthe
BAIL APPLN.442/2019 and Crl.M.A.3895/2019
ARJUN Petitioner
ARJUN Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent 2019:DHC:7290
BAIL APPLN.443/2019 and Crl.M.A.3896/2019
RAJAN Petitioner
RAJAN Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,AFP forthe
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,AFP forthe
BAIL APPLN.444/2019 and CrI.M.A.3897/2019
JAGDISH@JAGGA Petitioner
JAGDISH@JAGGA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
BAIL APPLN.445/2019 and CrI.M.A.3898/2019
SARVESH GUPTA Petitioner
SARVESH GUPTA Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State with Insp. Satish Rana,SHO,SI
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP for the State with Insp. Satish Rana,SHO,SI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA -f } The background facts and some ofthe issues that arise for decision on these anticipatory bail applications were noted in the proceedings recorded on 21.02.2019 as under:-
"Allegations have been made against the petitioner in case FIR no. 432/2018 ofpolice station Govind Puri involving offences statedly committed under Sections
323/325/452/379/506/34 IPG, the incident alleged to have occurred on 01.12.2018. The FIR, it ispointed out, was lodged on 24.12.2018 with no explanationfor delay. It is alsopointed out on behalfofthe petitioners that they had already lodged with the same police station Govind Puri FIR no. 411/2018 involving offences under Sections 341/323/325/308/34 IPG respecting the same very incident that had occurred on
01.12.2018. The petitioners point out another incident had occurred on 02.12.2018 involving offences under Sections
427/436/506IPG respecting which another FIR no. 413/2018 was registered with police station Govind Puri on 03.12.2018.
It is submitted that grievous and life threatening injuries were inflictedon Sarvesh Gupta,one ofthepetitioners.
The petitioners had earlier approached the court of
Sessions for anticipatory bail but their applications were declined. It appears reference came to be made at the time of hearing before the court ofSessions as to the death of two persons in thefamily ofthefirstinformantofFIR no. 432/2018.
On being asked, the additional public prosecutor submitted that the two persons who have died were named
Radhey Shyam and Sanjeev but, in all probability, the said deaths are not connected to the incident which is the subject matter ofthis FIR. It is submitted thatreportofpost mortem on the dead body ofRadhey Shyam has been received it indicating the death to be due to naturalcauses, thepost mortem reportof the examination ofthe dead bodyofSanjeev beingstillawaited.
The State willfile a detailed status report clarifying all
)"l Belistedon 3'^'^April,2019.
Till then, there shall be no coercive steps against the petitioners subject to they joining investigation as and when called upon to doso."
In compliance with the directions in the previous orders the SHO
Police Station Govindpuri has submitted an up-dated status report dated
22.07.2019. Whilst as per the said status report and the copy of the post mortem examination report dated 04.12.2018, presently there is no dispute that the death of Radhey Shyam on 02.12.2018 was for natural causes
(chronic lung disease and its complications),there is no clarity yet as to the cause ofdeath ofSanjeev which occurred on 01.02.2019,the viscera report being still awaited.
The prime argumentofthe petitioners isthatthe case does notinvolve the offence ofculpable homicide even on the basis ofthe observations in the interim report of autopsy doctor vis-a-vis the dead body of Sanjeev, the inordinate delay in lodging ofthe FR having not been explained. While the argument of delay is sought to be rebutted by the investigating agency through the Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground there was a death in the family ofthe complainant on the very next date after the incident,that aspect cannot be finally adjudicated upon at this stage ofthe legal/judicial process. The police is still in the process ofgathering evidence.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances which prevail, it seems just and proper that the petitioners are granted interim protection, though with the rider that such protection would be liable to be revisited in culpable homicide (whether amounting to murder or nor amounting to murder)to the case, based on final autopsy report or some other evidence that maycome up during the ongoing probe.
In view ofthe above,these petitions are allowed. Thus,it is directed that in the event ofthe petitioners being arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amounteach,subjecttothefollowing further conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and jointhe same asand when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers ofself and of at least one other responsible family member besides that of the suretyto the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade him/her fi"om disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(v) They shall not leave India without the prior permission ofthe court of cognizance or the trial court,as the case may be,and to ensure due compliance with this condition and shall deposit their passports, ifthey hold one,with the said court.
•V
This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event ofa charge-sheet being filed on conclusion ofthe investigation and process being issued against him by the court of cognizance.
It is added that in the event of the investigating agency gathering evidence showing involvementofthe offence ofculpable homicide(whether amountingto murderornotamountingto murder),the orderpassed asabove would be liable to the revisited for which the investigating agency is at liberty to approach this court after serving a notice of three days on the petitioners.
The petitions stand disposed ofin aboveterms.
Dastiunderthe signatures ofCourt Master.
GA
JULY 23,2019 vk BAILAPPLN.440/2019etc. Page6of6
"Allegations have been made against the petitioner in case FIR no. 432/2018 ofpolice station Govind Puri involving offences statedly committed under Sections
323/325/452/379/506/34 IPG, the incident alleged to have occurred on 01.12.2018. The FIR, it ispointed out, was lodged on 24.12.2018 with no explanationfor delay. It is alsopointed out on behalfofthe petitioners that they had already lodged with the same police station Govind Puri FIR no. 411/2018 involving offences under Sections 341/323/325/308/34 IPG respecting the same very incident that had occurred on
01.12.2018. The petitioners point out another incident had occurred on 02.12.2018 involving offences under Sections
427/436/506IPG respecting which another FIR no. 413/2018 was registered with police station Govind Puri on 03.12.2018.
It is submitted that grievous and life threatening injuries were inflictedon Sarvesh Gupta,one ofthepetitioners.
The petitioners had earlier approached the court of
Sessions for anticipatory bail but their applications were declined. It appears reference came to be made at the time of hearing before the court ofSessions as to the death of two persons in thefamily ofthefirstinformantofFIR no. 432/2018.
On being asked, the additional public prosecutor submitted that the two persons who have died were named
Radhey Shyam and Sanjeev but, in all probability, the said deaths are not connected to the incident which is the subject matter ofthis FIR. It is submitted thatreportofpost mortem on the dead body ofRadhey Shyam has been received it indicating the death to be due to naturalcauses, thepost mortem reportof the examination ofthe dead bodyofSanjeev beingstillawaited.
The State willfile a detailed status report clarifying all
)"l Belistedon 3'^'^April,2019.
Till then, there shall be no coercive steps against the petitioners subject to they joining investigation as and when called upon to doso."
In compliance with the directions in the previous orders the SHO
Police Station Govindpuri has submitted an up-dated status report dated
22.07.2019. Whilst as per the said status report and the copy of the post mortem examination report dated 04.12.2018, presently there is no dispute that the death of Radhey Shyam on 02.12.2018 was for natural causes
(chronic lung disease and its complications),there is no clarity yet as to the cause ofdeath ofSanjeev which occurred on 01.02.2019,the viscera report being still awaited.
The prime argumentofthe petitioners isthatthe case does notinvolve the offence ofculpable homicide even on the basis ofthe observations in the interim report of autopsy doctor vis-a-vis the dead body of Sanjeev, the inordinate delay in lodging ofthe FR having not been explained. While the argument of delay is sought to be rebutted by the investigating agency through the Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground there was a death in the family ofthe complainant on the very next date after the incident,that aspect cannot be finally adjudicated upon at this stage ofthe legal/judicial process. The police is still in the process ofgathering evidence.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances which prevail, it seems just and proper that the petitioners are granted interim protection, though with the rider that such protection would be liable to be revisited in culpable homicide (whether amounting to murder or nor amounting to murder)to the case, based on final autopsy report or some other evidence that maycome up during the ongoing probe.
In view ofthe above,these petitions are allowed. Thus,it is directed that in the event ofthe petitioners being arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amounteach,subjecttothefollowing further conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and jointhe same asand when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers ofself and of at least one other responsible family member besides that of the suretyto the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade him/her fi"om disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(v) They shall not leave India without the prior permission ofthe court of cognizance or the trial court,as the case may be,and to ensure due compliance with this condition and shall deposit their passports, ifthey hold one,with the said court.
•V
This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event ofa charge-sheet being filed on conclusion ofthe investigation and process being issued against him by the court of cognizance.
It is added that in the event of the investigating agency gathering evidence showing involvementofthe offence ofculpable homicide(whether amountingto murderornotamountingto murder),the orderpassed asabove would be liable to the revisited for which the investigating agency is at liberty to approach this court after serving a notice of three days on the petitioners.
The petitions stand disposed ofin aboveterms.
Dastiunderthe signatures ofCourt Master.
GA
JULY 23,2019 vk BAILAPPLN.440/2019etc. Page6of6
JUDGMENT