Delhi High Court
Arvind Azad vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 February, 2016
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 29th February 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2779/2015
ARVIND AZAD
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Drall and Mr. Vikas Azad,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State with
Inspector Om Parkash, Police Station
Khayala, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
%
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. Petitioner seeks bail in an offence registered as FIR No.
57/2011 under Section 302/364/365/202/201 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC) at Police Station Khayala, Delhi by
filing the present bail application under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.).
2. The present case was registered on the statement of one Harbir
Singh, who stated in his statement that his son - Vijay Solanki was a
Government School teacher at Chand Nagar, B-2, Second Shift. On
01.04.2011, at about 4.15 PM, he had received a call from Arvind
Azad (the petitioner herein) from the mobile phone of his son stating
that Vijay (deceased herein) is not well and they had gone for check
up to Park Hospital and now his health is fit and he is taking him back
to his house. Thereafter, as per the contents of FIR, the complainant
asked him to meet at District Centre, Janakpur. The complainant
reached the spot and waited there till 6.30 PM but nobody turned up.
Thereafter, two colleagues namely Rakesh and Vikas Kumar reached
the spot and told the complainant that in the Car No.DL-9C-J-7347
Maruti 800, white color, the petitioner had taken his son from Park
Hospital. It was further informed by them that they were also inclined
to be sit with them in the car but the petitioner suddenly drove the car
before they could be seated in the car. They also informed that a party
was organized in the school and the deceased did not take any food
but had taken only juice which was given by Arvind, the petitioner
herein and after taking the juice, the health of Vijay deteriorated. They
also tried to call the petitioner at mobile No.9911555411 and also
called at the phone of Vijay at 9211378005 but there was no response.
Thereafter, it is recorded in the FIR that they visited the residence of
Arvind Azad but could not find him.
3. The investigation was conducted and prima facie a case under
Section 365 IPC was made out, therefore the FIR was registered. The
petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2011 and since then the petitioner is
in custody.
4. Mr. Ashok Drall, counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been arrested in this case merely on the basis of
suspicion raised by the complainant. On 02.04.2011 at about 2.00 AM,
the uncle of Vijay Solanki came to the Police Station and informed
that they had got a telephonic message from PP Kharawar PS, Sampla
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana, regarding a dead body lying on the road side
and the same had been identified as the dead body of Vijay. It was
also alleged that the applicant poured petrol over the body of Vijay
and set him ablaze.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner is
falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with the
connivance of police as the deceased and his uncle - Rambir had
played a fraud upon the applicant, as the family members of the
deceased knew the misdeeds committed by them with applicant in the
property dealings laid suspicion upon the petitioner.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FSL report
falsifies the story of the prosecution as no poison has been detected in
the report. Besides this, the chemical analysis does not disclose any
trace of petroleum products and elements. It is further contended that
since the present case is purely based on circumstantial evidence and
the time gap between the last see and discovery of dead body is of
such nature in which no one can rule out the involvement of other
persons and assume the involvement of the accused only.
7. The last contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the
petitioner in custody since 17.4.2011; charge sheet has been filed; the
present case is based on circumstantial evidence; there is no eye-
witness to the incident and only 20 witnesses out of 50 prosecution
witnesses, including the public witnesses, have been examined and the
remaining prosecution evidence would take time, therefore the
petitioner ought to be granted bail in the present case.
8. Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contention of
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that efforts were made to trace
the deceased as well as the petitioner herein and ultimately on
17.04.2011 the petitioner was arrested. Status report has also been
filed on behalf of the State, in which it is submitted that during
interrogation, the petitioner had disclosed about his involvement in the
commission of crime and also got recovered personal belongings of
the deceased. It is only thereafter, Sections 365/302/201 of IPC were
added. Charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending trial
before the Court of Sessions.
9. I have heard the submissions of counsel appearing on behalf of
both the sides and gone through the material placed on record.
10. After careful scrutiny of the case, this Court observes that
victim was the teacher in Govt. school, in which the petitioner was
also a teacher. The petitioner organized a party; the petitioner gave
juice to the victim the petitioner took the victim to hospital and the
petitioner called the father of the victim (complainant herein) from his
son's mobile on 1.4.2011 at 4.15 PM informing the complainant that
he will be reaching alongwith his son at District Centre, Janakpuri, but
did not reach.
11. There are two independent witnesses, i.e., colleagues of the
deceased - Rakesh and Vikas Kumar who informed the complainant
that the petitioner had organized a party and the deceased had taken
some juice given by the petitioner herein and only thereafter, the
health of victim deteriorated. Thereafter, he was taken to Park
Hospital by the petitioner himself in Car No.DL-9C-J-7347 Maruti
800, white color. This Court also observes that there is recovery of
personal belongings of the victim including his PAN Card, Identity
Card, Shoes and purse at the instance of the petitioner herein.
12. After going through the contents of the petition as well as FIR,
statement of witnesses recorded in the present case, and the material
placed before this Court observes that the charge sheet has been filed
in this case and evidence is being recorded. This court is of the
conscious view that the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has to complete the chain of
circumstances which could indicate the guilt of the accused only.
Though the evidence is not concluded but this Court cannot ignore the
fact that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner, who took the
deceased in Car No.DL-9C-J-7347 Maruti 800, white color, from the
Park Hospital and other colleagues - Rakesh and Vikas Kumar were
also inclined to in the car alongwith the deceased. This Court also
does not lose sight of the fact that there is recovery of PAN Card,
Identity Card, Shoes and purse at the instance of the petitioner herein.
13. In view of the aforesaid observations and in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner - Arvind Azad, at this stage. Accordingly, the
bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
14. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove, shall
not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
P.S.TEJI, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
pkb
