Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 24 August, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 24, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 4364/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.9375/16
DINESH KUMAR
..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Eti Solanki, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
Mr.Puneet Mittal, Advocate with
Ms.Vasudha Bajaj, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of
bail granted to respondent No.2 (in short 'the accused') by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 2.9.2015. The petition is
contested by the accused.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Petitioner's counsel urged that there were serious
allegations against the accused of committing murder of his wife, Neetu.
After Neetu's marriage with the accused on 13.11.2013, she was harassed on
account of dowry demands. The deceased used to suspect the accused to
have extra marital relationship. When she apprised her family about it, the
accused started treating her with more cruelty. In the first week of June,
2014 she suffered a miscarriage. The victim came back to her parental home
on 8.6.2014. On 21.06.2014, the accused called her to meet him at Noida
Sector 18 Metro Station; she did not return thereafter. DD No.40A was
lodged at Police Station Kalyanpuri. On seeing the video footage captured
on the public cameras installed at Metro Station Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, it
was found that the deceased had caught Metro to go to Noida. In the video
footage at Noida Sector 18 Metro Station, the deceased was seen with her
husband/ the accused. On 24.06.2014, the FIR in question was lodged.
Counsel further urged that without giving any notice to the complainant, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused by the
impugned order dated 2.9.2015 without imposing any substantive
conditions. It is a non-speaking order and no reasons were indicated for
grant of bail in such a heinous offence.
3. Reliance has been placed on Masroor vs.State of U.P.
MANU/SC/0683/2009; Puran etc.vs.Rambilas & Anr.
MANU/SC/0326/2001; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.Rajesh Ranjan & Anr.
MANU/SC/0214/2004; Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.Sudarshan Singh & Ors.
MANU/SC/0203/2002; Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana
MANU/SC/0284/2002.
4. Learned counsel for the accused urged that there is no illegality
in the impugned order as all the facts and circumstances were taken into
consideration by the court below at the time of grant of bail. Reliance has
been placed on Aslam Babalal Desai vs.State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC
272.
5. Admitted position is that the complainant's daughter Neetu was
married to the accused on 13.11.2013. Admittedly, she went to her parental
home on 8.6.2014. On 21.06.2014, she went 'missing' and DD No.40A
came into existence at Police Station Kalyanpuri. The complainant did not
suspect the accused's involvement. On 24.06.2014, the instant FIR
suspecting the accused to be involved in the crime was registered.
Undoubtedly, entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial
evidence. In the response, the accused has disclosed that victim's body was
recovered from an open place accessible to the public at large. The
investigating agency did not place on record any video footage. The Call
Detail Records have not been relied on.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that it was passed after
hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused
was in judicial custody since 24.06.2014. It was urged on behalf of the
accused that the entire case of the prosecution was based on loose
circumstantial evidence. There was no dispute between the accused and the
deceased at any point of time. The victim had visited her parent's home few
days prior to the incident and there was no scope for the accused to indulge
in any sort of untoward activities. The CCTV footage of Metro Station and
Noida were not made part of the final report. Considering all these
contentions; facts and material on record and the custody period for more
than fourteen months, the accused was admitted to bail imposing condition
that he would not try to influence the witnesses or to adversely affect the
trial otherwise.
7. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The
discretion to grant bail has been exercised by the court below in a judicious
manner. At the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence
and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case are required to be
avoided. Of course, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted are required to be indicated.
8. In the instant case, the victim was accused's wife and their
marriage took place on 13.11.2013. Nothing is on record to show if any
time prior to the occurrence any complaint, whatsoever, was lodged against
the accused or his family members for treating the victim with cruelty on
account of dowry demands. The victim was at her parent's house on the day
when she went missing. Initially, the complainant did not suspect the
involvement of victim's husband. The entire case of the prosecution is based
on circumstantial evidence. The accused remained in custody before grant of
bail for about fourteen months. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet had already been filed. The complainant did not apprehend any threat
to the prosecution witnesses at the hands of the accused. Status report
reveals that Neetu had kept Mobile Nos.9990543136 and 8376886845. Their
call details have not been placed on record to ascertain her location on the
relevant time. Response filed by the accused reveals that charge was yet to
be framed. The trial is to take a long time. After the grant of bail, there are
no allegations of its misuse in any manner. There was no apprehension of
the accused to flee from justice.
9. Law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is well-settled. The
court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction; the nature of supporting evidence,
reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support
of the charge are the factors which are required to be taken into
consideration before granting bail.
10. In the instant case, all these factors have been taken into
consideration. The impugned order granting bail cannot be termed as
unjustified, illegal or perverse.
11. The petition lacks in merits and is dismissed. All pending
application(s) also stand disposed of.
12. Observations in the order would have no impact on merits of
the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 24, 2016
sa
