Delhi High Court
Pankaj Gautam vs State on 11 December, 2015
#28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.12.2015
BAIL APPLN. 2694/2015
PANKAJ GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Koluru, APP with SI
Govind Singh, PS- Uttam Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.18123/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPLN.2694/2015
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking
regular bail in FIR No.1164/2015, under Sections 307/498-A/34 IPC,
registered at Police Station- Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relies upon the order
passed by this Court on 23.11.2015 whereby the applicant's mother namely,
Asha Rani was released on anticipatory bail, to urge that he is entitled to
parity.
3. The above submission does not come to the aid of the present
applicant inasmuch as this Court has already rejected his application for
anticipatory bail by way of a speaking order dated 14.10.2015, on grounds
similar to the one taken by Asha Rani, mother of the applicant.
4. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2015. It has
been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the delay in arresting the
applicant was occasioned by his deliberately keeping himself away from the
investigation. The learned APP would urge that the applicant was in fact
absconding. The Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Govind Singh, Police
Station- Uttam Nagar, who is present in person states that proceedings under
Section 83 of the Code were initiated against the applicant in this behalf. It
is only thereafter that the applicant surrendered before the concerned Police
Station.
5. It has also been pointed out by Ms. Kolluru, learned APP appearing on
behalf of the State that the present applicant has other previous involvements
and at least two other First Information Reports have been registered against
him inter alia under Section 376 IPC and Sections 354/506/325 IPC,
respectively.
6. In the present case, it is observed that the wife of the applicant was
rushed to hospital around midnight on 05.09.2015 with a history of ingestion
of unknown poison (oregano phosphorus). It is an admitted position that the
wife of the applicant as well as the applicant were present at the matrimonial
home immediately prior to her being rushed to the Barkat Ram Hospital.
When the wife of the applicant was certified fit by the doctors concerned, in
her statement to the police she alleged that she was being tortured for dowry
and that at the behest of her mother-in-law, the present applicant gave her a
blow and after sitting over her closed her nose and poured poison into her
mouth. It is also a part of her statement before the police that thereafter both,
the mother-in-law as well as her husband (present applicant) closed the door
from outside. The wife of the applicant has also alleged a threat to her life
from the applicant. The subject FIR was registered on a complaint at the
instance of the wife when she called up the police and the PCR Van that
responded to the said call and rushed her to the hospital. The doctor, who
authored the MLC, has clearly opined that the injury was grievous and
gastric lavage has been sent to FSL, Rohini for a report in this behalf.
7. In view of the foregoing and after noticing that the applicant has a
criminal record and is prima facie guilty of the commission of an offence
under Sections 307/498-A IPC; the seriousness and gravity of the charges
levelled against him by his own wife, the present application, which has been
filed at a time when the investigation into the subject FIR is still ongoing, is
dismissed.
8. Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DECEMBER 11, 2015
dn
