Delhi High Court
Manish Chaudhary @ Manish Kumar vs State on 23 May, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1039/2019
MANISH CHAUDHARY @ MANISH KUMAR ... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Sisodia, Mr. Gaurav Sisodia, Mr. Akvar
M. Khan and Mr. A.P.S. Sisodia, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State
with Inspector Ravindra Singh, P.S.: Hauz Qazi
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 131/2018, initially,
registered under Section 365/34 IPC, after investigation, charge-sheet
has been filed under Section 364/365/302/201/120-B/34 IPC, Police
Station Hauz Qazi.
2. Allegations of the prosecution are that a missing report was
lodged of one Sushil Kumar. In the FIR it is alleged that Sushil
Kumar was having an affair with co-accused Dimple @ Dolly
Chaudhary. Subsequently, Sushil Kumar came to know that she was
having affair with another person namely Mohit Mavi, due to which
he became angry and was pressurizing her to leaving Mohit Mavi. It
was alleged that in the FIR due to these reasons, it was suspected that
Sushil Kumar had been kidnapped and kept hostage at some unknown
place.
3. During investigation, co-accused Dimple @ Dolly Chaudhary
was interrogated that she disclosed and she was having an affair with
Sushil Kumar sine last 6-7 years and he was pressuring her for getting
married with her and she did not want to get married with Sushil
Kumar. She fixed up to meet Sushil Kumar at Mathur and also called
a family member (petitioner herein) who was a resident of Mathura
and accordingly they stayed in Hotel in the afternoon.
4. It is alleged that she further stated that in the evening, she met
Sushil Kumar and thereafter, they roamed in Mathura and then
booked a room in a Hotel in Mathura and stayed there. Dimple @
Dolly Choudhary ordered for a 'biryani' and she also bought two
bottles of soft drinks from the hotel. When Sushil Kumar went toilet,
she mixed 50 sleeping pills in the soft drink and thereafter, when
Sushil Kumar came back to the room and consumed soft drink he
became unconscious. She is further alleged to have stated that
thereafter she called Manish to the hotel and along with Manager of
the Hotel, they put unconscious Sushil on a Scooty. While Dolly was
driving the Scooty, Manish was holding the unconscious Sushil
Kumar in the middle sitting as pillion rider.
5. Thereafter, it is alleged that they threw Sushil Kumar in
Yamuna River from Old Yamuna Bridge. Based on the statement of
Dolly petitioner has been arrested.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the alleged
confessional statement, there is no material to even connect the
petitioner with the subject offence. He submits that there is no
material to even show that any offence has been committed. He
submits that body of Sushil Kumar has not been recovered and as such
there is no material to show that any death has occurred.
7. Further he submits that as per the case of the prosecution 50
sleeping pills were administered to Sushil Kumar by the co-accused
and there is no role ascribed to the petitioner till that stage. He further
submits that 50 sleeping pills would be sufficient in ordinary course to
cause death and as such the maximum petitioner could be charged
with is disappearance of evidence under section 201 IPC. He further
submits that there is no material to show that there was any meeting of
mind to constitute criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and co
accused in alleged commission of offence of murder.
8. Petitioner has been in custody since 04.09.2018.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied
that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
10. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in
any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice
either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not leave
the country without the permission of the Trial Court. Petitioner shall
surrender his passport, if any, to the IO, if not already done so.
11. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
12. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 23, 2019
savita
