Swati vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 6858 Del

$~22
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+            BAIL APP. 1880/2015 & Crl.M.A. No.13154/2015
                                                Date of Decision: 11.09.2015
       SWATI                                                 ..... Petitioner
                           Through        Mr.Piyush Chhabra, Adv. with
                                          Mr.Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Adv. &
                                          Mr.Priyankar, Adv. & Mr.         Arjun,
                                          Adv .
                           versus
       THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                 ..... Respondent
                     Through   Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for the State.
                               Mr.Lakshay Dhamija, Adv. with
                               Mr.Sahil Gupta, Adv. for
                               Complainant.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

       P.S. TEJI (Oral)

             The present bail application under Section 438 of the Code of

       Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the petitioner for

       grant of anticipatory bail.

             As per the averments made in the bail application, the first

       anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the

       learned Special Judge vide order dated 30th July, 2015 as non-

       maintainable being pre-matured and the second bail application seeking

       anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner after registration of FIR

       No.1209/2015 in which the petitioner was granted interim protection.

       However, on 3rd September, 2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
          Bail Application No.1880/2015                              Page 1 of 9
 (ASJ) dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

      The facts giving rise to the present application are that the husband

of the petitioner namely Mr.Amit, committed suicide on 20th July, 2015.

A complaint against the petitioner was lodged by Mr.Ajit, the brother of

deceased Mr.Amit, which culminated into registration of FIR

No.1209/2015 by Police Station, Vasant Vihar. In the said FIR, the

complainant Mr.Ajit, brother of the deceased, has alleged that Ms.Swati-

petitioner/wife of the deceased, had abetted and instigated her husband to

commit suicide.

      As per the complainant, the petitioner was married with the

deceased Mr.Amit on 22nd February, 2015. Mr.Amit used to run a mobile

shop but his wife Swati used to fight everyday about job and many a

times, the mother and sister of Swati had come to their house to quarrel.

Swati used to fight everyday with the deceased Amit and used to

mentally agonize him. In fact, Swati used to go straight from her work to

her paternal home without informing his husband Amit. A week before

the incident, with the consent of Swati, the parents of Amit got them

arranged a room on rent but despite that, Swati did not stop quarrelling.

      It is further stated by the complainant that in the evening of 20 th

July, 2015, he tried to contact Amit on his mobile, but the mobile phone

of Amit was switched off. The complainant stated that when he went to

Munirka to check, he found the door of the room locked from inside. The

   Bail Application No.1880/2015                             Page 2 of 9
 complainant entered in the room after breaking the window and found his

brother Amit hanging. The complainant immediately informed the police

and a constable Mr.Ravinder reached on the spot. On inspection by the

Crime Team, Mr.Amit was found hanging in half pent and a suicide note

was recovered from in his possession which reads as under:

             "I Amit am very much troubled by my wife Swati,
             because of her today, I am living here leaving my God
             like mother and father and my family. My wife
             troubles me day and night and tells me that I have
             affair with someone else but there is no such thing.
             My mother and father have cried today but what can
             they do. I am sorry Mummy Papa & my family. I
             miss u (my wife should be punished by law for this
             otherwise my soul will not be at peace)."

      Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that a

bare reading of the FIR would reveal that there is no abatement on the

part of the petitioner and the case of the prosecution does not suggest any

instigation or any kind of abetment towards Amit for committing suicide.

      It is further submitted that soon after marriage, the in-laws of the

petitioner started ill-treating the petitioner for the demand of dowry and

thus, the petitioner and the deceased shifted to a separate accommodation.

He further submits that there is no mens rea on the part of the applicant to

drive the deceased to commit suicide.       It is also submitted that the

petitioner is a pregnant lady and has a Government job which is her only

source of income to sustain herself and unborn child in future.

      Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment of

   Bail Application No.1880/2015                             Page 3 of 9
 Kartar Singh : Kripa Shankar Rai v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569,

submitted that custodial interrogation exposes the suspect to the risk of

abuse of his person or dignity as well as distortion or manipulation of his

self-incrimination in the crime.        He further submitted that mere

harassment does not amount to abetment.

      Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment

passed by Supreme Court in Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana

2008 (11) SCC 215 in which it was observed that in cases of alleged

abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of

incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband

treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.

      Another judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner

is in the case of Hira Lal Jain v. State (2001) Cri LJ 1212 in which the

Delhi High Court observed that a person is said to instigate another when

he goads, provokes, incites, urges forward or encourages another to

commit a crime. The fact that a suicide note was recovered certainly

cannot be said to mean that the petitioner has goaded, provoked, incited,

urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide.

      While summing up arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail for

the reason of her being pregnant and on the ground that no mens rea

could be established on the part of the petitioner.

   Bail Application No.1880/2015                            Page 4 of 9
       In reply to the bail application filed by the State, reference has been

made to the suicide note wherein role of the petitioner has been specified

to prima facie establish active involvement of the petitioner in abetting

the commission of suicide by the deceased. It has been submitted that

deceased was subjected to harassment at the hands of the petitioner.

      I have considered the rival contentions and also gone through the

entire records. In Chandrawati Vs. State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ 3634, the

Allahabad High Court held as under:

                    "The overriding considerations in granting
             bail which are common both in Sections
             437(1) and 439(1), Cr.P.C. are the nature and
             gravity of the circumstances in which the offence
             has been committed, position and status of the
             accused with reference to the victim and the
             witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing from
             justice and tampering with witnesses etc. No list
             of exhaustive grounds can be set out. Facts

differ from case to case. Bail is at the most a matter of procedural privilege and not an accrued right until it is granted. The law is the sentinel of rights of the Society and of the individual. The cause of public justice has to be zealously guarded as the rights of a criminal defendant. Interest of society and also cause of public justice has also to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. When the offence is of such nature which affects the vital interest of the society and has adverse effect on the social and family life, in such matters the issue is to be considered with reference to them. One of the considerations which has to be weighed for granting or refusing bail is a nature of the offence and its heinousness."

In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280 ,the

Supreme Court observed as follows:-

"The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not accepted, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

On a bare perusal of the contents of the suicide note and the

statement made by the complainant in the FIR, if read as whole, it

appears that from no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the

petitioner had not committed abetment. The claim of Ms.Swati,

wife of the deceased that at the time of the incident she was at her

workplace where she is employed as an LDC at South Campus,

Moti Bagh, and on the fateful day, the deceased husband of the

petitioner and the petitioner had breakfast together and the

petitioner could not reach the phone of the husband the whole day,

does not render any help in the contention of the petitioner.

Ms.Swati being the wife of the deceased, was admittedly

residing in the same house with the deceased on the fateful day and,

thus, she is expected to have special knowledge and information

about the circumstances in which the suicide was committed.

Being the prime suspect in the case, the investigation is to be

initiated from the accused as she has important role in the

investigation of the said case.

It is not necessary in such type of cases to have direct

evidence or presence at the spot immediately before or at the time

of commission of suicide to form an opinion whether the

allegations against the petitioner amounts to instigation or abetment

which forced Amit to take the extreme step. In fact the very

conduct of the petitioner in filing a pre-matured anticipatory bail

application i.e. filing of the said application even before the

registration of any complaint or FIR against her clearly establishes

the fact that she had an apprehension of arrest in the present case.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid

submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also

perused the entire material on record and I find that the nature of

the allegations against the petitioner are serious as a life has been

lost on inability to bare the harassment and torture at the hands of

the petitioner.

More the reason, the police have opposed the anticipatory

bail on the ground of the requirement of custodial interrogation of

the accused/applicant being a sole suspect for the abetment to

commit suicide by the deceased Amit, the husband of the

petitioner.

The arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner

that presently she is pregnant, would not make her eligible for the

concession of the anticipatory bail as she is the sole suspect being

required for the purposes of custodial interrogation and the person

having special knowledge about the circumstances in which the

offence was committed.

In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the

concession of the anticipatory bail. Hence the anticipatory bail

application is dismissed.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the

prima facie observations made by this Court while declining the

bail prayer of the petitioner.

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the

Court Master.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 aa