Jitender Chowdhary @ Jatan ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 5010 Del

$~ 42
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              Bail Application No.1382/2011

%              Judgment delivered on:12th October, 2011

JITENDER CHOWDHARY @ JATAN
RAJENDRA                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv.
                          with Mr. Rajendra Sahu,
                         Ms.Hema Sahu, & Mr.Rishabh
                         Sahu, Advs.
             versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI              ..... Respondent
                   Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                   State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                 No.
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  No.
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?                                      No.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition the petitioner Jitender

Chowdhary @ Jatan Kumar has sought to be released on bail

in the case FIR No. 333/2006 dated 21.06.2006 registered at

PS-Anand Vihar under Section 365 of the IPC.

2. Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for

petitioner/accused submits that on 15.6.2006 missing report

of deceased Shailender was registered at the aforesaid

Police Station, whereas as per the prosecution story the

missing information was telephonically received by Mr.

Prahlad Singh from Ms. Deepshikha on 14.06.2006, whereby

she informed about the kidnapping of the deceased by the

accused persons. Ld. Senior Counsel has pointed out that

this information by the informant Mr. Sahib Singh, neither

transmitted to the Police nor mentioned in the FIR.

3. Further submits that the investigation of this case was

transferred to Special Cell, Lodhi Colony on 25.8.2006.

Before transfer, on an application moved by the local police

the Ld. trial court issued non-bailable warrants against the

applicant / accused. Thereafter, applicant /accused was

arrested on 03.09.2006 from Agra, UP.

4. Ld. Sr. Counsel argued that PW-1 Sahib Singh, PW-2

Prahlad Singh & PW-6 mother of the deceased have not

identified the wrist watch of the deceased, allegedly

recovered by the police.

5. Further submits that Ms. Saloni Arora, girl friend of co-

accused Deepak has been charged u/s 182 read with Section

201 IPC for giving false information and destruction of the

evidence as she stated that she has damaged the Sim Card

of the Mobile Phone. Ms. Saloni Arora, filed Revision Petition

against the said order in this Court and vide Order dated

25.09.2009 all other charges have been set aside except

charge U/s 182 Indian Penal Code.

6. Ld. Senior Counsel has further referred to the

deposition of PW-1 Sahib Singh, who stated that deceased

Shailender was having two mobile phones. He was unable to

recollect the entire phone numbers, however could tell only

last two digits 441 and 439. Deepshikha was the girlfriend of

Shailender. He used to keep one mobile phone with him. He

had given one mobile phone bearing the last digit 441 to

Deepshikha. Shailender and Deepshikha used to talk to him

on mobile phone. PW-3 deposed that Mr. Prahlad told him

these facts, which were told to him by Ms. Deepshikha that

Mr. Shailender was in custody of accused Deepak, Jitender

(applicant / accused), Adesh Chaudhary and Saloni Arora and

they may kill him.

7. Ld. Sr. Counsel has further referred to the cross-

examination of PW-1 Sahib Singh, who admitted that

whatever had been disclosed by him to the Duty Officer, the

same had been recorded by him in DDR. He had gone

through the entry No. 9A before putting his signatures. He

had also not discussed with Jagdish or Prahlad as to what

should have been incorporated in the missing report.

Further stated that on 21.6.2006 also Prahlad and Jagdish

were with him, when he had lodged the FIR. Further

admitted that whatever had been told to the Police on

21.6.2006, the same had been recorded by the police

officials. He had Ex.PW1/E after the report lodged on

15.6.2006.

8. Therefore, he submits that applicant / accused is not

connected with the crime. There is no other evidence except

the recovered wrist watch and gold ring of the deceased.

Even FSL Report does not support the prosecution story.

9. Further submits that all family members of the

deceased and public witnesses have already been examined.

There is no apprehension of any threat or pressure on

witnesses.

10. Ld. APP for the State submits that it is true that missing

report was given to the Police on 15.6.2006. Before that

family of the deceased were searching on their own. Though

the information received on 14.6.2006 from Deepshikha

regarding the abduction of the deceased by the accused

persons, somehow due to the fear that anything could

happen to the deceased, they did not inform the name of the

accused persons at the time of registering the FIR. But, this

much information has already been given that deceased was

in trouble and kept in a place where he may be killed by the

accused persons.

11. She has further argued that applicant is the brother of

Deepshikha who was having love affair with the deceased.

The applicant / accused was not happy with this relationship.

Therefore to eliminate the deceased he conspired with the

co-accused and committed the offence.

12. Further submits, accused persons took the aid of one

Saloni, who called on Shailender on mobile phone. The

investigating team has verified the call and found to be the

correct. Co-accused Saloni has disclosed that she was sitting

in a Santro Car, whereas the deceased was taken in a

Wagon-R belongs to Saloni. The deceased was killed in the

car itself and thereafter his body was thrown in Gang Nahar,

Murad Nagar, UP. However, the body could not be

recovered.

She submits, the guilt of the applicant / accused

has been corroborated by the deposition of Saheb Singh.

After the commission of the offence, the aforesaid car, which

was used in the Offence was taken by co-accused Deepak

Singh for dry-cleaning at Bagga Link Motors. This has also

been corroborated by the Supervisor of the Bagga Link

Services.

13. More so, co-accused Adesh Chaudhary was admitted to

bail vide order dated 9.4.2007, thereafter he threatened

Jagdish Prasad. Accordingly, case u/s 506/341 Indian Penal

Code, 1860 was registered against him. On 04.01.2008

Jagdish Prasad, father of the deceased was killed on the

direction of Tejbir, maternal uncle of the applicant / accused

and father of co-accused Deepk Singh. Accordingly a case

under Section 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was

registered at PS Iglash, Aligarh, UP. All the accused were

arrested in the said case.

She further submits, thereafter, a false case u/s 406

Indian Penal Code was got registered against Saheb Singh

and his brother-in-law Prahlad at PS-Taj Ganj Agra, UP. The

Police investigated the case and found that the above two

persons Saheb Singh and Prahlad Singh were not in Agra on

that day and in fact they were in Delhi and casted their votes

in Assembly Elections at Delhi.

14. Witness Deepshikha turned hostile during trial. Perusal

of the record reveals that deceased Shailender was in love

with Deepshikha. Therefore, to save the accused persons,

she has not supported the case of the prosecution. More so,

she wrote a letter to DM before this incident. The copy of

the original letter was recovered from co-accused Adesh

Chaudhary, whereas the photocopy of the same was

recovered from search of the bag of deceased by the father

of the deceased. The same was handed over to the

Investigating Agency. Some photographs of Deepshikha and

Shailender were also handed over to the Police, which

proves that Deepshikha and Shailender were in relationship

and they wanted to marry each other, to which the applicant

/ accused and his family members were not agreeable.

Further submits, the charges against co-accused Saloni

have been dropped by this Court and left only one Charge

under Section 182 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State has

taken decision to challenge the same by filing the SLP in the

Supreme Court.

15. Further submits that CFSL Report is also against the

accused where it is recorded that the hand writing of the

letter was found to be of Deepshikha. In the present Case,

total witnesses are 39, out of which only 16 witnesses have

been examined.

16. It is not the case where he may threaten the material

witnesses including the complainant. All the family members

have been examined. He is somehow connected with the

crime as the deceased was having relationship with his real

sister namely Deepshikha. The past experience is also not

positive as the father of the deceased has already been

eliminated by the closed relatives of the applicant / accused.

The murder in the present case alleged to be a planned

murder. So, I am not giving any opinion on this issue since

the matter is pending for evidence. After admitting the co-

accused on bail, the father of the deceased has been

eliminated.

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to admit

the petitioner/accused on bail.

17. Keeping the above discussion in view, the instant bail

application is dismissed.

18. No order as to cost.

SURESH KAIT, J

October 12th 2011 JG