Delhi High Court
Manoj Sehrawat vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 30 May, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 732/2016
Date of Decision: May 30th, 2016
MANOJ SEHRAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.R.N. Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
with SI Karamvir, PS Narela.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail in
FIR No.427/2012, under Sections 364/302/201/404/120B IPC,
Police Station Narela.
2. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State were
heard at length.
3. The allegations leveled in the present case are that on
06.08.2012, a police report was lodged by one Yogesh with regard
to missing of his mother Smt.Darshana Devi. It was alleged by the
complainant in the complaint that his mother left the house on
21.07.2012 after being called by an unknown lady. Thereafter, the
mobile phone of his mother could not be connected. The
complainant found two registers from the room of his mother
wherein entries regarding money transaction were made. On the
basis of complaint made, FIR No.427/2012, PS Narela under
Section 365 IPC was registered.
4. During the course of investigation, call detail record of the
mobile phone of Smt. Darshana Devi was analyzed and on the
basis of same, accused Yash Pal @ Sonu was arrested, who
disclosed that he had taken money from Smt.Darshana Devi and
was unable to return it and thus, he planned to eliminate her. He
also disclosed that on 21.07.2012, he along with accused Manoj
took Smt.Darshana Devi towards village Daryapur. They both got
down from the car on the pretext of tyre puncture and sat on the
rear seat. Accused Yashpal caught hold the hands of
Smt.Darshana and accused Manoj strangled her to death with her
chunni. Accused Yashpal took ear ring, gold chain, mobile phone
and cash of Rs.12,000/- of the deceased and then threw the dead
body on the side of canal in bushes near village Rohat, PS Sadar,
District Sonepat, Haryana. During further investigation, receipt of
Muthoor Finance Corporation regarding mortgage of jewellery and
SIM card which was used for talking to the deceased were
recovered from accused Yashpal. At the instance of accused
Yashpal, decomposed dead body of deceased was also recovered
which was identified by her son Yogesh. Accused Manoj was also
arrested and at the instance of both the accused persons, car used in
the crime was recovered. Thereafter, Sections 302/201/120B/34
IPC were added in the present case.
5. During further investigation, ornaments of deceased were
seized from Muthoot Finance office. A sum of Rs.47,045/- from
accused Yashpal was also seized which he had taken after
mortgaging the ornaments. Mobile phone of accused Yashpal was
also seized. Two diaries of deceased having entry of Rs.14 lacs
lent to accused Yashpal were also seized. Statement of one public
witness Jogender was recorded who stated that he saw the
deceased and accused Yashpal along with one person in the car
near Sannoth Village, Narela. Moreover, the accused Manoj even
refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade.
6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are that the deceased went missing since 21.07.2012 and
her missing report was lodged on 06.08.2012 and the FIR was
registered on 11.08.2012, whereas the statement of public witness
PW7 Jogender was recorded on 18.08.2012 which creates doubt
regarding the story of prosecution. It was further argued that the
dead body was recovered on 14.08.2012 and in the post mortem
report, no ante mortem injuries were found and also no exact cause
of death was opined by the doctor. It was further argued that there
is no report of the doctor to the effect that the death of the deceased
was a homicidal death. Nothing incriminating has come on record
against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner is
behind the bar since 15.08.2012 and the conclusion of trial is likely
to take time.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has argued that witness Jogender has clearly identified
both the accused persons as the persons who were lastly seen in the
company of deceased on 21.07.2012 i.e. the day she went missing.
It was further argued that the mobile phone locations of both the
accused persons were found at the same location of mobile phone
of the deceased on the day when the deceased went missing. The
ornaments of deceased as well as their receipt mortgaging the same
with Muthoot Finance Company were also recovered from accused
Yashpal.
8. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature to
the effect that he criminally conspired with his co-accused and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy committed the murder of
deceased for a sum of Rs.1 lacs. It is specifically alleged against
him that he was last seen in the company of deceased along with
co-accused Yashpal and this fact has been stated in the statement
of witness PW7 Jogender. The contention of the petitioner that no
cause of death of deceased has been given by the doctor cannot be
appreciated at this stage for the reasons that the trial is still going
on and no comments on the merits of the case can be made at this
stage. It is also apparent from the record that the highly
decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered and that too
after many days of death. It is also specifically alleged against the
petitioner that he strangled the deceased with the help of her
chunni. It is also matter of record that the petitioner refused to join
the Test Identification Parade.
9. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that
there was active involvement of the petitioner in the commitment
of the murder of the deceased and he refused to join the Test
Identification Parade, this Court does not find it fit to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2016
dd
