Kamlesh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 8241 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Judgment delivered on : November 02, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2182/2015
      KAMLESH                                               ..... Petitioner
                            Through      Mr.Gaurav Gaur and Mr.Hem Singh,
                                         Advocates.

                            versus

      THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                 ..... Respondent
                    Through  Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for the State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                      JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present bail application under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking bail

in a case registered under FIR No.429/2015 under Section 498-A/304-

B/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Vasant Kunj (North),

Delhi.

2. The State has filed its status report and according to the status

report, on 1.5.2015 a PCR call regarding suicide by a lady at B-Block

dispensary Park, Kusumpur Pahari was received at Police Station

Vasant Kunj North, New Delhi vide DD No.14A. The investigation

was assigned to Sub-Inspector Vivek Malik, who visited the place of

occurrence i.e. H.No.B-91A, Kusumpur Pahadi, Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi. The Investigating Officer found a dead body of a lady lying on

the floor. The in-laws and husband of deceased were found at the

spot. It was revealed that at about 3.30 AM, Sajan (husband of

deceased) found the deceased Rakhee hanging with the hook of

ceiling fan. During inquiry, it was revealed that the marriage of the

deceased took place just two and half months before, therefore the

concerned learned Executive Magistrate was informed about the

incident, who visited the spot and recorded the statement of Shri

Rajeshwar Paswan - the father of the deceased, wherein it was alleged

that his daughter was being beaten by her mother-in-law and her

husband. It was also alleged about the demand of gold chain by her

husband Sajan. The illicit relationship of Sajan with another woman

was also alleged. After recording statement of father of the deceased

the learned Executive Magistrate directed for registration of case

under Section 304-B/498-A/34 of IPC and the same got registered

vide FIR No. 429/2015; Crime team was also called and photographs

of scene of crime were taken. Investigation of the case was entrusted

to Inspector Santan Singh. Inquest proceedings were conducted by

Shri R.K. Singh, Executive Magistrate. Dead body of deceased Rakhi

was sent to AIIMS, New Delhi and the MLC No.5731/2015 of

deceased Rakhi was prepared by the doctor as brought dead.

3. As per status report, during the course of investigation neither

suicidal note was found nor any resistant marks/signs ws found at the

place of occurrence. Statement of Meena Devi (mother of deceased)

and Raju Paswan (brother of deceased) were recorded under Section

161 of Cr. P.C. Seizure memo was prepared, post mortem of deceased

was conducted at AIIMS, New Delhi and the viscera was sent to

Regional Forensic Science Labortory, Jaswant Place, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi for expert opinion. After perusal of Post Mortem report,

and viscera analysis report, the expert opined that the cause of death

in the present case was "Äsphyxia due to ante mortem hanging". The

husband of the deceased - Sajan was arrested on 01.05.2015 and the

petitioner - Kamlesh was arrested on 02.05.2015.

4. It was also stated in the status report that the trial of the case is

pending adjudication before the court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Patiala House Courts New Delhi and the next date of hearing is

fixed as 19th October 2015. It is also stated in the status report that

there are 30 prosecution witnesses including three female witnesses

who are yet to be examined and the apprehension of threatening or

winning over the prosecution witnesses and jumping the bail is raised

by the State, if released on bail.

5. The petitioner had also moved the bail application before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), Delhi which was dismissed

vide order dated 12.08.2015, which is impugned in the present

petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge -04, New Delhi

District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, keeping in view the

gravity of offence and the fact that the case was fixed for

consideration on charge and finding substance in the submissions of

learned APP for the State, rejected the bail application of the

petitioner.

6. Mr. Gaurav Kaur, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner

and submits that the petitioner is an old aged lady and is in judicial

custody since 02.05.2015 and there is no evidence or the allegation of

the offence under Section 304B of IPC against the petitioner in the

entire FIR or the charge sheet. It is also contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the investigation in the case has already been

completed and final report/charge sheet has been filed and the

petitioner is not required for any investigation or custodial

interrogation. It is also contened on behalf of the petitioner that in the

post mortem report of the deceased, there were no other external ante

mortem injury on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also urged that the petitioner is an old woman and has clean

past antecedents and the petitioner is having deep roots in the society

and has got permanent residential address and there is no likelihood of

her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Counsel

also urged the contradictions in the statements of the relatives of the

deceased.

7. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State submitted that the order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge is a well reasoned order and does not call

for any interference by this Court. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge, while rejecting the bail to the accused has rightly observed that

there are various public witnesses cited by the prosecution in the list

of witnesses and the allegations against the applicant are very serious

in nature.

8. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner/applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State. After considering the contents of the present petition as well

as the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is not

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially when

there are various public witnesses cited by the prosecution in the list

of witnesses who are yet to be examined and also keeping in view the

nature of allegations against the applicant being serious in nature.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the present application filed by the

petitioner - Kamlesh is dismissed at this stage. However, it goes

without saying that any observation made in the aforesaid order shall

not affect the merits of the case.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 02, 2015 pkb