Delhi High Court
Tejpal @ Lilu & Ors vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 4 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 04, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 228/2015 & Crl. M.A. No. 1669/2015
TEJPAL @ LILU & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioners are brother-in-law (Devar), sister-in-law (Devrani) of
the deceased and the third petitioner is son of first two petitioners, who
seek pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 2113/2014, under Section 302/34 IPC,
Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi on the ground that the deceased had set
herself on fire with the hope that she would be saved and she had done so
due to property dispute.
At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners
that at the instance of father-in-law of the deceased, a complaint was filed
and on its basis an FIR No. 2114/2014 was registered regarding deceased
committing suicide. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the instant
FIR is false and motivated and that petitioner no. 1 was in the hospital
Bail Appln.No.228/2015 Page 1
and husband of the deceased had taken his wife to the hospital after she
had set herself on fire and even petitioner no. 3 was not present at the
time and place of the incident. Thus, it is submitted that petitioners
deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail as they are ready to join the
investigation.
This application is seriously opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor who had drawn the attention of this Court to the dying
declaration of the deceased. It was pointed out that the dying declaration
of the deceased clearly implicates petitioners - accused persons and the
plea of alibi taken by them is not substantiated and that FIR No.
2114/2014 is an after-thought and so petitioners do not deserve the
concession of pre-arrest bail.
The parameters governing pre arrest bail in serious offences like
instant one, as reiterated by Apex Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of
Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 are as under: -
"18. This Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre [(2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514 :
AIR 2011 SC 312] after considering the earlier judgments
of this Court laid down certain factors and parameters to
be considered while considering an application for
anticipatory bail: (SCC pp. 736-37, paras 112-13)
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory
bail:
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended
before arrest is made;
Bail Appln.No.228/2015 Page 2
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as
to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) the possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or [the] other offences;
(v) where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(vi) impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of
people;
(vii) the courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the
case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with
the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860
the court should consider with even greater care and
caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter
of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) while considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two
factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free,
fair and full investigation and there should be prevention
of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;
Bail Appln.No.228/2015 Page 3
(ix) the court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to
be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be
restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of
that case. The court must carefully examine the entire
available record and particularly the allegations which
have been directly attributed to the accused and these
allegations are corroborated by other material and
circumstances on record."
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR of this case as well as the
subsequent FIR, the material on record and the dying declaration of the
deceased, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the
applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
liberty. Since specific role has been attributed to the petitioners in the
dying declaration, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve concession of
pre-arrest bail. Even the plea of alibi raised by the petitioners does not
stand substantiated.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are not
Bail Appln.No.228/2015 Page 4
entitled to pre-arrest bail. This application is dismissed while not
commenting on merits, lest it may prejudice petitioners when they seek
regular bail before the Sessions Court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
rs
Bail Appln.No.228/2015 Page 5
