Vikas vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 7060 Del

$-13
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      BAIL APPLN. 707/2015
                                  Date of Decision : September 17th, 2015
       VIKAS                                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr.Adv. with
                                        Mr.S.P.Kaushal and Mr.P.S.Bindra,
                                        Advs.

                         versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State.
                                        Mr.Navin Sharma, Adv. for the
                                        Complainant.

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

       P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of

bail in FIR No.115/2013, Police Station Fatehpur Beri, under Sections

304-B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegations levelled against the accused are that the

complainant, namely, Karan Singh made the statement to the police

that the marriage of his daughter Poonam was solemnized with the

petitioner on 11.02.2012. Since marriage, his daughter was being

harassed on account of dowry by the petitioner and his mother Geeta.

Poonam was residing in her parental house for the last four months.

On 14.04.2013, petitioner and his relative took Poonam back to her

matrimonial home. Poonam used to inform her parents about the

dowry demands made by the petitioner and his mother and also that

she was being beaten by them. On 14.05.2013 at about 6.19 p.m., the

complainant received a call on his mobile phone and the caller

informed that Poonam was not opening the door. Immediately

thereafter, the complainant reached the matrimonial home of Poonam

and found the dead body of Poonam hanging in the bathroom. The

complainant raised suspicion that his daughter was killed and hanged

by the petitioner Vikas and his mother Geeta.

3. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR of the present

case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed in

the Court.

4. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner is in incarceration since 16.05.2013. Since all the

family members of the deceased have already been examined, there is

no chance of influencing the public witnesses. It is further argued

that the allegations against the petitioner and co-accused Geeta are

identical and the co-accused has already been released on bail. It is

further submitted that the trial is likely to take long time and no

purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars for

an indefinite period.

5. In support of the arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied

upon judgment in case Aman Gaur v. State, 2012 (1) JCC 415 in

which it was observed that the incarceration of the petitioner was

causing deprivation of his legal defence, which a person who is at

liberty can conduct in a much better manner. Next judgment relied

upon is in case of Sumer Singh (Sh.) v. State, 2008 I AD (Cr.)

(DHC) 1 in which the petitioner was granted bail while observing that

where the prosecution case appears to be weakening, justifying grant

of bail, limited exercise of prima facie evaluating the evidence can be

carried out by the Court.

6. In the present case, the first bail application of the petitioner

was dismissed by the Trial Court on 03.12.2014 and the second on

08.04.2015. It is a matter of record that the trial of the case is still

continuing. There is no force in the ground taken by the petitioner

that since the co-accused has already been granted bail, he also be

granted bail. Being the husband of the deceased wife, the

responsibility of the petitioner was on a higher pedestal as compared

to the other accused, to maintain his wife well, but as per the

allegations levelled against him and co-accused, an atmosphere was

so created by their acts that it eventually led to the death of the wife

of the petitioner.

7. So far as the other ground regarding period of incarceration of

the petitioner is concerned, the mere fact that the petitioner has

undergone a certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle

him to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to

be concluded in the near future by itself would be sufficient for

enlarging the petitioner on bail, keeping in view the gravity of

offence. This view gets strength from Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias

PapuYadav v. CBI through its Director, AIR 2007 SC 451.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any assistance from the judgments

in case of Aman Gaur (supra) and Sumer Singh (supra) as the facts

and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable.

8. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, no ground

is made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9. Application is accordingly dismissed. However, the Trial

Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial preferably

within a period of six months.

P.S.TEJI, J

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 dd