Sharvan Kumar Goel v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners who are the brothers of deceased ManojKumar Goel seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.602/2015 under Sections 306/120B IPG registered at PS Moti Nagar pursuant to directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 2017:DHC:8422

2. The brief background ofthe matter. On 10^ August, 2009 Manoj Goel committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on his body and setting himselfon fire. ASI Preet Pal Singh recorded statement ofManoj Kumar Goel,his wife Neelam Goel and the petitioners. Manoj Kumar Goel stated that he poured the kerosene oil on himself due to depression and family members. Later on 11'*^ August,2009 ManojKumar Goel passed away. In the inquest proceedings conducted no foul play was found. On 2"^^ September, 2011 i.e. after more than 2 years, the wife of deceased Smt. Neelam Goel filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking directions for registration of FIR under Section 156 Cr.PC. on the strength ofa suicide note allegedly written by Manoj Kumar Goel. In the said complaint case,on 29'^ June,2015,the learned Metropolitan magistrate directed registration ofFIR. Thus,the petitioners preferred anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on dismissal whereofthe present petitions have been preferred.

3. In the suicide note which was according to the wife ofthe deceased duly signed by the deceased it was mentioned that the elder brothers ofthe deceased were not returning his ?1 lakh, refrigerator, ring nor his share in the house. Thus due to these two persons, he was committing suicide. In the suicide note it was also written that his shop should be with his wife and whatever amount is received from the share ofthe house and the LIC should be paid to his wife. He also prayed for action against these two petitioners.

4. During course of investigation, the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased collected from the bank was sent to the FSL which opined that there was similarity in the two handwritings. In view of this fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail applications ofthe petitioners.

5. Admittedly the suicide note was not recovered immediately after the death and was presented by the wife ofthe deceased before the Court only aftertwo years ofthe incident. In the year 2012,the parties had entered into a settlement with respect to the share in the properties etc. and the complainant agreed to withdraw all civil suits and complaints filed by her. Moreover, the allegations even in the suicide note are that the petitioners were not returning his ^1 lakh,refrigerator, ring nor giving his share in the house. Without commenting whether the same would amount to abetment ofsuicide or not,this Courtis ofthe considered opinion that atthis stage this is a fit case for grant ofanticipatory bail. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of^25000/- each with one surety each ofthe like amount to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that the petitioners willjoin the investigation as and when directed and will not leave the Country without prior permission ofthe Court concerned.

6. Petitions and applications are disposed of.

7. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. JANUARY 25,2017 W mittaP