Shyam vs State Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 1030 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          Bail Appl.No.1238/2008

%                        Date of Decision : 15.07.2008


Shyam                                          ....... Petitioner
                  Through:      Mr.Manu Sharma, Advocate.


                                  Versus


State NCT of Delhi                               ......... Respondent
                  Through :     Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.
                                Mr.Pradeep Jain, Advocate for the
                                complainant.


CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

    1. Whether reporters of Local papers may             NO
       be allowed to see the judgment?
    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            YES
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported           YES
       in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure

Code for grant of bail in FIR No.62/2008, P.S.Lodhi Colony, under

Section 365 IPC. Petitioner is in custody since 24th March, 2008.

Some of the relevant facts as per the first information report are

that Ms.Sweta Chauhan aged 23 years, daughter of Sh.M.L.Chauhan is

alleged to have gone to IILM for her MBA class on 10th March, 2008 and

was not found in the evening on the same day when her brother went to

pick her up. Her mobile phone was also found to be switched off. The

allegation made is that one Mukul Bhadana @ Sonu, r/o.Village Kotla

Mubarakpur may have abducted her and confined her at secret

location.

It is alleged that on the intervening night of 12th /13th April, 2008

the father and brother of the girl accompanied by 8-10 persons had

found the girl Shweta Chauhan and Mukul Bhadana at a village in 24,

Pargana, North Bengal and had taken them from there. On 13th April,

2008, Mukul Bhadana was brought to Delhi by Indigo flight whereas

Ms.Shweta Chauhan was brought to Delhi by a separate flight by her

father. The statement of Ms.Sweta Chauhan was recorded under

Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code on 14th April, 2008.

The complainant, father of Ms. Shweta Chauhan was unwilling to

produce the girl, however, pursuant to the efforts made, she was

produced before the court of Sh.Satish Kumar on 15th April, 2008 and

her statement was recorded on 16th April, 2008. In the statement under

Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code it was stated by her that she

was asked to come to a Maruti Zen car near her examination centre.

When she went to the Maruti Zen car, two friends of Mukul Bhadana

including the applicant Shyam were present. The Maruti Zen car

allegedly belonged to Satish, one of the friend of Mukul Bhadana who

was present there. Ms. Shweta Chauhan stated that Mukul Bhadana

alongwith the applicant and another friend of Mukul Bhadana, Satish,

took her forcibly to Palwal where she was shifted to another Maruti 800

car which was a taxi and which was driven by Raju @ Doctor. The

statement of Shweta further reveals that she was allegedly threatened of

her life by Mukul Bhadana and a handkerchief was waived in front of

her nose by Mukul Bhadana which made her senseless. Satish and the

applicant, Shyam, is also alleged to have shouted at her. From Palwal

Satish and the applicant, Shyam, came back, however, Ms. Shweta

Chauhan and Mukul Bhadana reached Aligarh. From Aligarh they

reached Howrah by Purba Express and from there along with Razaaq, a

Bengali Muslim, by a local train to Khaspur. There Mukul Bhadana and

Shweta Chauhan were apprehended by father of Ms. Shweta.

After the statement of Ms.Shweta Chauhan was recorded under

Section 164 on 16th April, 2008, on 17th April, 2008 she is alleged to

have committed suicide.

The police recorded the statement of villagers of Village Khaspur,

District 24 Pargana North (West Bengal) which reveal that Shweta was

living with Mukul Bhadana and she was freely moving there. The

statement of owner of the Hotel at Aligarh where Shweta and Mukul

Bhadana stayed before catching Purba Express was also recorded.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

principal accused is Mukul Bhadana and the alleged car in which late

Ms.Shweta Chauhan was allegedly abducted was recovered at the

instance of another accused Satish @ Pandit and no allegations were

made against the accused. The learned counsel contends that the

charge sheet stipulates that from consideration of the details of the calls

made from the mobile phones of Late Ms.Shweta Chauhan, bearing

numbers 9899603444 and 9971518340 and the mobile phone

no.9911461788 of the accused Mukul Bhadana, it is apparent that the

deceased Shweta Chauhan was known to Mukul Bhadana for a

considerable period and a number of calls were made to Mukul

Bhadana. The accused Mukul Bhadana had also been visiting the

residence of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in the circumstance

contends that deceased Shweta Chauhan who was about 23 years of

age could not be forcibly taken away in broad daylight against her

wishes and she had all the opportunities of raising cries for help. It is

contended that in the entirety of facts and circumstances there is no

culpability on the part of the petitioner and there has been no allegation

that she was confined by the petitioner or at his instance. At the

maximum what can be argued is that the petitioner along with Satish @

Pandit had arranged for a car in which the petitioner, Shyam, also went

up to Palwal, which does not reflect any conspiracy on the part of the

petitioner.

The petitioner is stated to be a peace loving and law abiding

citizen and nothing has been recovered at his instance and he is not

likely to hamper the course of investigation or trial or misuse the liberty

granted to him in case he is released on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the

status report dated 26th June, 2008 revealing that the deceased Shweta

Chauhan was living with the accused Mukul Bhadana according to the

statements of the villagers recorded there and she was freely moving

there. The learned counsel has referred to the statement of Kumari

Mamta a fellow student of deceased and the statements of the villagers

of village Khaspur, District 24 Pargana North (West Bengal).

The application is opposed by the State and the counsel for the

complainant, father of the deceased. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, Mr.Sharma contends that the statement of the deceased

recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 16th

April, 2008 to the effect that the accused Mukul Bhadana showed her a

knife and threatened her to be quiet and something was put in the

handkerchief before her, inhaling of which made her senseless is

corroborated by the statement of the taxi driver namely Raju recorded

under Section 161 wherein he has stated that when the accused Mukul

Bhadana had come with Ms.Shweta Chauhan she was scared (ghabrai

hui).

The learned counsel for the State, however, could not refute that

the details of the mobile phone numbers of the deceased and Mukul

Bhadana reveal the relationship between the two for a considerable

period and that the role attributable to the petitioner Shyam is that he

was in the car with another accused Satish when Mukul Bhadana is

alleged to have taken the deceased from New Delhi to Palwal and they

had also shouted at her, as Mukul Bhadana had told her to be quite in

the car which belonged to other accused Satish.

The learned counsel for the complainant, Mr.Jain very

vociferously contended that the status report dated 26th June, 2008

was filed in the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the

complainant, father of the deceased Shweta Chauhan. The learned

counsel also emphasized on the statement given by the deceased on

16th April, 2008 under Section 164 contending that the applicant with

other accused Satish had shouted at her when the accused Mukul

Bhadana had showed her the knife and had threatened to kill her

unless she went with him. In her statement she also revealed that after

they reached Palwal the applicant went back and thereafter Mukul

Bhadana and the deceased Shweta Chauhan went by a blue Maruti

which was a taxi and they reached Aligarh and thereafter they took a

train Poorva Express.

Statement of the villagers of the Village Khaspur, District 24

Pargana North (West Bengal) reveal that the deceased Shweta Chauhan

was living with Mukul Bhadana as husband and wife and some of the

villagers had also developed intimacy with the deceased and had even

visited some areas. The statement which has been recorded is not only

of the person in whose house the two had stayed but other villagers also

and the statement of one of the owners of the hotel at Aligarh has also

been recorded which also reveal intimacy between them.

From the perusal of the record and the circumstances peculiar to

the petitioner and that the petitioner has no antecedent criminal history

and considering other circumstances relevant for grant of bail, it is a fit

case where the petitioner should be released on bail.

Consequently, the petitioner is released on bail on furnishing a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of like amount

to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The application stands

disposed of.

Dasti.

July 15, 2008                                     ANIL KUMAR, J.
'K'