Delhi High Court
Rani Singh (In Judicial Custody) vs State Of Nct Delhi on 4 December, 2020
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:07.12.2020
20:45:02
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th December, 2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 2051/2020 & CRL.M.A. 10477/2020
RANI SINGH (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate.
(M: 9811098069)
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP.
Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Panel
Advocate, DHCLSC for Complainant
(M: 9999318211)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. This matter has been listed in the typed supplementary list.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the Applicant - Rani
Singh who has been in custody since 17th January, 2019. The Petitioner is
accused in FIR No.66/19 registered under Sections 302/120B and 34 IPC.
4. The background of this case is that the Applicant was married to the
Complainant - Mr. Surya Pratap Singh. They had a son named Yuvan. The
allegation against the Petitioner, as per the status report and the charge sheet
which has come on record, is that she developed an illicit relationship with
one Mr. Narender Kumar Saini who was working in the same school where
she was teaching. The child was living with the Applicant and Mr. Narender
Kumar Saini.
5. On 12th January, 2019, the police was informed of the death of Yuvan.
Investigation revealed that the child had become seriously ill on 10 th
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:07.12.2020 16:42
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:07.12.2020
20:45:02
January, 2019. The postmortem report showed that the child had suffered
serious and brutal injuries on his body. The charge sheet, in fact, alleges that
the death of the child was painful and he was the victim of cruelty and even
brutality cannot be ruled out.
6. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Applicant, being the
mother of the child, was not present at the time of the incident. Though the
relationship with Mr. Narender Kumar Saini is not disputed, the case of the
Applicant is that her illicit relationship with Mr. Narender Kumar Saini
ought not to be considered relevant insofar as the present bail application is
concerned. It is further submitted that since the mother i.e., the Applicant
was not present at the time of the incident, it cannot be inferred from the
circumstances alone that she had conspired in the crime with Mr. Narender
Kumar Saini.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Sumit Choudhary, ld. counsel for the
Complainant i.e., the father of the child submits that the child was always
living with the mother and Mr. Narender Kumar Saini and he was not even
informed in time about the injuries which the child had suffered. According
to the Complainant, the Applicant does not have any permanent residence in
Delhi and is only living in a rented accommodation. Therefore, she poses a
huge flight risk. Moreover, none of the public witnesses have been
examined. Hence, bail ought not to be granted.
8. Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, ld. APP also relies upon the status report
and submits that the statement of Mr. Narender Kumar Saini, which was
recorded immediately upon his arrest, shows that he and the Applicant had
conspired to eliminate the child in view of the fact that he was becoming a
hindrance in their relationship.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:07.12.2020 16:42
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:07.12.2020
20:45:02
9. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the translated copy of the
charge sheet, the status report, the nominal roll as also the petition and the
objections by the Complainant. The admitted facts are that a five year old
child has died in a gruesome manner as is clear from the injuries which the
child had suffered. The charge sheet which has been placed on record
shows that the post-mortem report reveals that the child had suffered from
cerebral injuries. He also appears to have been inflicted with slaps/punches
and thrown on a hard surface like the ground or walls of the house. The
child had multiple injuries on different parts of his body.
10. Admittedly, the Applicant and Mr. Narender Kumar Saini had
custody of the child. The circumstances do show that the child was brutally
injured and passed away within two days after he was taken to the hospital.
The complicit nature of the mother, if any, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Even if the mother was not present at the time the child was injured, the
mother also holds a fiduciary responsibility, especially when leaving her
five-year-old child with a third person. The Applicant, being the mother of
the child and having separated the child from the father also had a higher
level of duty to take care of the child. Moreover, the case is at the initial
stage. The Applicant may have the propensity to influence witnesses who
are yet to be examined, if released on bail. The co-accused is also in
custody. Since the evidence is yet to be examined in this case, at this stage
and in the background of the above facts, the Court is not inclined to grant
bail.
11. At this stage, the Applicant seeks to withdraw the present bail
application. Under these circumstances, the bail application is dismissed as
withdrawn. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:07.12.2020 16:42
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:07.12.2020
20:45:02
12. It is made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall
have any bearing in the trial of the matter.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 4, 2020
dj/T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:07.12.2020 16:42
