High Court of Delhi was dealing with the bail application in an FIR which was registered on 02.08.2021 under Section 306 but later on Sections 323/341/354D/392/506/509 IPC were also added.
Brief Facts:
On 01.08.2021, an incident took place, when the deceased hanged herself with rope and on 02.08.2021, FIR was registered against the accused. The charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed. The first bail application moved before learned ASJ, was dismissed on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, regular bail application which was filed after filing of the charge-sheet, was also dismissed by the learned ASJ, North District vide order dated 01.12.2021. The statement of the child witness, daughter of the deceased, was recorded by the Magistrate at much belated stage and, therefore, tutoring and manipulations cannot be ruled out. Another witness examined by the police is one Ms. Kavita, who was working in the same beauty parlour, where the deceased was working. It is mentioned that the complainant, husband of the deceased, had stated that when deceased talked about the acts of petitioner to her friend Kavita, she advised her that she should tell all the things to her husband. On the basis of this statement, an FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner used to follow the deceased and on one occasion he had slapped the deceased and restrained her by snatching the key of her Scooty and had threatened her.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge-sheet stands filed and the case is still at the stage of committal. The petitioner is a young man and he is innocent, so regular bail has been prayed.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the deceased and petitioner were on talking terms. The time of committal of suicide by the deceased is 5.30 p.m. The applicant had been regularly visiting the house of the deceased in front of friends and relatives. It was submitted that from statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that applicant was threatening and pressurising the deceased, as he wanted to marry her.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the petitioner and the deceased were on friendly terms, they were talking to each other regularly and the applicant petitioner was regularly visiting the house of the deceased, even in the presence of her daughter, a friend of the deceased and two sisters-in-law of the deceased. It was not a case where relationship was kept under wraps and relatives and friends of the petitioner and deceased were not aware about the same.
HC stated that in a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the witness Kavita had stated that the petitioner had visited the house of the deceased in her presence and in the presence of deceased’s sisters-in-law and daughter on 01.08.2021. The said witness had advised the deceased to go to the police station with her but the deceased told her that he would tell everything to her husband. Instead of explaining everything to her husband, the deceased committed suicide and witness came to know about it at 7.00 a.m. on the next morning from a friend ather work place.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “The learned Session Judge has specifically noted in the bail rejection order that the possibility of the witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out, as both are residing in the neighbourhood and the allegations against the accused-applicant are serious in nature. Since statements of the important witnesses had already been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., so mere apprehension of the State that he is likely to influence the witnesses, does not hold any water. Moreover, conditions can be put on the applicant to ensure that the applicant stays away from the witnesses and he neither influences nor threatens the said witnesses.”
Case Title: Sujit Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 4505/2021
Decided on: 28th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
