Raj Bala vs State Of Nct Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 374 Del

$~19 & 20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 18.01.2016

+       BAIL APPLN. 79/2016 and Crl. MA No. 624/2016 (Exemption)


        RAJ BALA                                       ..... Applicant
                           Through   Mr. Lal Singh Thakur and Mr. Sudhir
                                     Tewatia, Advocates

                           versus

        STATE OF NCT DELHI                             ..... Respondent

                      Through        Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State
                                     Inspector Ghan Shyam and ASI Vinok
                                     Kumar, P.S. North Rohini
                                     Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Adv. for the
                                     complainant

+       BAIL APPLN. 80/2016 and Crl. MA No. 625/2016 (Exemption)

        PAWAN KUMAR                                    ....Applicant
                           Through   Mr. Lal Singh Thakur and Mr. Sudhir
                                     Tewatia, Advocates

                           versus

        STATE OF NCT DELHI                             ..... Respondent
                      Through        Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State
                                     Inspector Ghan Shyam and ASI Vinok
                                     Kumar, P.S. North Rohini
                                     Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Adv. for the
                                     complainant


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL



 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.

620/2015, under Sections 306/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station- North

Rohini, Delhi have been instituted by the mother-in-law and husband of the

deceased- Ritu, who died an unnatural death on 9th February, 2014.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants would urge that

they have been falsely implicated and that the allegations levelled against

them are an after-thought and clearly manipulated.

3. Learned counsel invites my attention to the following circumstances in

support of the afore-stated submissions:-

(a) that Ritu did not leave behind a suicide note;

(b) that the alleged threats which resulted in the victim taking the drastic step were admittedly made by the applicants three-four weeks prior to the date of the alleged incident;

(c) that the threats to kill Ritu if she did not withdraw the cases instituted by her against the applicants herein, which were not withdrawn, cannot be considered to be abetment to suicide;

(d) that the applicants were living separately from Ritu; and

(e) that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

4. In view of the foregoing, it is strenuously urged by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the applicants that the custodial interrogation of the

applicants is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that

the applicants, if released on pre-arrest bail shall join investigation and co-

operate with the police.

5. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned APP appearing on behalf

of the State would urge that the viscera report qua Ritu is yet to be received

from FSL and that the investigations are at an initial stage. Mr. Oberoi

would further urge that the applicants are charged with serious offences and

grave allegations have been levelled against them, which would in the event

of conviction invite a maximum of ten years imprisonment and that the

conduct of the applicants from the year 2010 as evidenced by the FIRs

registered against them by Ritu and the circumstance that the applicants are

absconding and have steadfastly refused to join investigation despite the

issuance of non-bailable warrants, disentitles them from grant of pre-arrest

bail.

6. A perusal of the subject FIR, which came to be registered on a

direction issued by the concerned Magistrate, reveals that Ritu died in

suspicious circumstance on the 9th of February, 2014. It is further alleged

that although Ritu and her husband were married on 24th January, 2005 with

great pomp and show and dowry had been given at that time to the applicants

by the family of Ritu way beyond their means and capacity, the applicants

continuously tortured Ritu during her lifetime for more and more dowry.

7. It is also alleged in the subject FIR that the applicant- Pawan Kumar in

Bail Application No. 80/2016, who is the husband of the deceased Ritu, tried

to remarry during the lifetime of Ritu. The FIR further alleges that Ritu was

forced to live separately from the applicants along with her minor daughter

(Preesha) in order to escape the cruelty, torture and harassment, however, to

no avail. A number of cases/FIRs were registered by Ritu from the year

2010 onwards against the applicants.

8. It is lastly alleged in the subject FIR that three-four weeks before

Ritu's unnatural death, the applicants suddenly came to her house and

pressured her to withdraw all her cases and threatened to kill her if she did

not comply with their demands. Ritu is alleged to have confided in her

mother that the applicants stated "kal mar ya aaj lekin case to wappis lene hi

padenge or main doosari shadi bhi jarror karoonga, agar tumne case vapas

nehi liya to tumhein jine nehi doonga."

9. The status report filed on behalf of the Station House Officer, P.S.-

North Rohini, Delhi inter alia reads as follows:-

"That, due to repetitive cruelty and harassment to his daughter, complainant was forced to purchase a house for his daughter at Sec-7, Rohini so that she could live peacefully but his daughter's husband accused Pawan Kumar did not improve his behaviour and continued torturing his daughter. In this regard, a case vide FIR No. 65/13 dated 20.03.2013 u/s 323/314/34 IPC at P.S.- Dwarka, Delhi and FIR No. 195/13 dated 14.06.2013 u/s 498A/406 IPC at P.S.- Rani Bagh, Delhi were registered against both the accused persons.

That, it is further alleged that both accused persons came to his house and pressurized his daughter to withdraw the cases registered against them. Due to torture/pressure the daughter of the complainant namely Ritu hanged herself on 09.02.2014.

That, during the course of investigation, the search of accused persons Pawan Kumar and his mother Smt. Raj Bala made but both accused persons are absconding and evading their arrest. On 04.01.2016, NBWs of accused persons have been obtained but they are evading their arrest and not joining the investigation.

That, as per the allegation the petitioner accused persons are continuously threatening the family of complainant to face the dire consequences if case is not withdrawn. The allegations are serious in nature and accused persons are economically sound and can hamper the witness and tamper the evidences. There are high chances of jumping bail if

granted. Custodial interrogation is required to unleash the chain of incidence.

That, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner accused was dismissed by Hon'ble ASJ Sh. Digvinay Singh vide orders dated 15.12.2015."

10. In a nutshell, it is the assertion of the SHO, P.S. North Rohini, Delhi

that despite having been asked to join investigation, the applicants are

absconding and have evaded their arrest. Non-bailable warrants against the

applicants have been obtained on 4th January, 2016, however, despite that the

applicants have steadfastly refused to join investigation. It is also an

assertion on behalf of the SHO that the applicants are continuously

threatening the family of Ritu with dire consequences if the subject FIR is not

withdrawn.

11. There is gainsaying the fact that a person approaching the Court for

pre-arrest bail is entitled to the same unless the Court is of the view that they

shall not be available to stand trial or that they shall threaten witnesses or

otherwise tamper with the evidence.

12. In the present case, none of the factors as enumerated hereinabove for

grant of pre-arrest bail are available to the applicants, inasmuch as, they have

steadfastly refused to join investigation and have allegedly threatened the

complainant with dire consequences.

13. Furthermore, the conduct of the applicants since the year 2010 as is

evidenced from the conspectus of cases/FIRs instituted against them by the

deceased Ritu disentitles them from the grant of pre-arrest bail.

14. It is trite to state that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more

elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a

favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. [Ref: State represented by

CBI vs. Anil Sharma reported as 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4417]

15. Decisions canvassed on behalf of the applicants namely, Sarla Devi

vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 221 (2015) DLT 779 and Hari Gopal

Wadhwa & Anr. vs. State reported as 143 (2007) DLT 210, do not come to

their aid, inasmuch as, in the former case, the deceased victim had not made

any statements against her husband qua demand for dowry or threat to life

prior to dying an unnatural death and secondly, the husband of the deceased

victim was already in custody; and the latter is a case relating to grant of

regular bail.

16. In the present case, the charges against the applicants are grave; there

is palpable danger of applicants absconding or fleeing, if granted pre-arrest

bail; and there is a reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being

threatened.

17. In this behalf, it is observed that the investigations are at an initial

stage and the report of the FSL qua the unnatural death of Ritu is still

awaited.

18. I agree with the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge to

the effect that custodial interrogation is indeed required in the present case.

19. In view of the above, the present bail applications are dismissed.

20. It is however made clear that the observations made in the present

order are for the limited purpose of deciding the bail applications and shall

not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JANUARY 18, 2016 sd