Full Judgment Text
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 27.09.2023
Pronounced on: 20.11.2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023
NAVEEN UPPAL @ SUNNY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. and
Mr.Pawash Piyush, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP with Insp.
Nitesh Bhardwaj, PS Maurice Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 106/2016 under Section 302 IPC,
1860 read with Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police
Station Maurice Nagar.
2. Vide order dated 01.06.2023, notice was issued in the bail application
and the State was directed to file a Status Report. The State has filed Status
Reports dated 14.08.2023 and 16.09.2023, which are on record.
3. The case of the prosecution as borne from the status reports is that on
10.05.216, information was received from the PCR to the effect that one
Sunny (petitioner herein) had informed that he is going to commit suicide
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
and a lady who was also with him had shot herself. The said information was
recorded vide DD No. 26-A and was entrusted to SI Sandeep for
investigation.
4. On reaching Hindu College, one Ford Eco Sport car bearing
registration no. DL 86 AK 8361 was found. On the driver seat, one person
was found sitting while on co-driver/passenger seat, a lady was lying who
was found to be dead. On enquiry, the person sitting on the driver seat
disclosed his name as Naveen Uppal @ Sunny (petitioner herein) and he
informed the name of the lady as Anjali Devi. The body of Anjali Devi was
sent to hospital, where she was declared as brought dead.
5. During enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner and the deceased
were in a relationship for the last several years. The deceased was married
and had children, whereas, the petitioner herein was married to another lady.
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner told the deceased to leave
him and when the deceased refused, the petitioner shot the deceased.
6. With the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered
on 11.05.2016 and the petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2016 itself.
7. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the
outset submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2016. He further
submits that the petitioner was granted the benefit of interim bail as per the
recommendations of the High Powered Committee and has surrendered in
jail on 07.04.2023. It was urged by the learned senior counsel that the
petitioner has been enlarged on interim bail on six different occasions vide
orders dated 17.04.217, 04.06.218, 27.07.2018, 04.02.2019, 13.08.219 and
22.06.2020 and the said concession was not misused by the petitioner. He
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
further submits that the prosecution has sought to examine 64 witnesses and
the petitioner may not be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial, which is
not likely to be concluded anytime soon.
8. On the merits of the case, Mr. Mathur submits that as a matter of fact
the petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship since many years. In
January, 2016 the petitioner was engaged to another lady, against his wishes
and under the pressure of his family his marriage was performed on
24.04.2016 i.e. 15 days prior to the incident. He submits that both the
petitioner and the deceased were extremely disturbed by the aforesaid events
and had jointly planned to end their life together by committing suicide.
According to Mr. Mathur, the factum of relationship between the petitioner
and the deceased is well established from the material on record. To buttress
his contention, he placed reliance on the testimony of the son of the
deceased, who has been examined as PW-23.
9. He submits that pursuant to the suicide pact, the deceased had shot
herself and when the petitioner tried to shoot himself, the bullet got stuck in
the chamber of the pistol. This according to Mr. Mathur, is clearly borne out
from the testimony of PW-7, ASI Tej Singh, who produced the PCR call
book before the Ld. Trial Court wherein it has been clearly recorded that the
petitioner and the deceased had agreed to commit suicide. Reliance in this
regard is also placed on the seizure memo prepared by the IO to contend that
the seizure memo clearly mentions that the magazine of the pistol was found
empty and one live cartridge was found in the chamber of the pistol. The
attention of the Court was also drawn to the FSL report which records “ many
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
attempts have been made to test fire exhibit 9mm cartridge marked A1, but
resulted into misfire. ”
10. Further, it was submitted that after the call was made by the petitioner,
he did not try to abscond from the place of the offence but rather had gone to
the location where he was asked to go by SHO P.S. Maurice Nagar.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the statement of the SHO P.S. Maurice
Nagar recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, to contend that the
petitioner had followed her instructions and reached the spot near Hindu
College.
11. Mr. Mathur submitted that it is further case of the prosecution that the
petitioner had caused the death of the deceased as the petitioner wanted to
leave the deceased but the deceased was not agreeable to it and that the
deceased had advanced a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner. According to
Mr. Mathur, the case of the prosecution is belied from the conversations
between the petitioner and the deceased which have been recovered from the
phones of the parties. The attention of the Court was drawn to the transcript
of the recording dated 09.05.2016 i.e. the day immediately prior to the date
of the alleged incident i.e. 10.05.2016 to contend that on the said date the
deceased and the petitioner were conversing to the effect that they shall
commit suicide the next day.
12. It is submitted by Mr. Mathur that the antecedents of the petitioner are
clean in as much as no other case except the present case is pending against
the petitioner. Further, it was urged that no recovery has to be made from the
petitioner as the prosecution has filed the chargesheet as well as the
supplementary chargesheet.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
13. Lastly, it is submitted that all public witnesses have been examined by
the prosecution and only official/police witnesses are left to be examined
and thus there can be no apprehension on part of the prosecution that the
petitioner may influence witnesses.
14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has been
urged by Mr. Mathur that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
15. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has
argued on the lines of the Status Report. She submits that the petitioner has
been accused of a grave and serious offence, therefore, he may not be
enlarged on bail. She submits that the petitioner was found sitting on the
driver seat of the car and the dead body of the deceased was lying on the
front left side seat and the petitioner was also found in possession of weapon
of offence i.e. country made pistol and one live cartridge without any permit
or licence. She further submits that as per the MLC, the cause of death was
found to be craniocerebral damage consequent to a fire arm injury.
16. She also submits that on 13.03.2016 and 14.03.2016, the location of
the petitioner was found to be of Uttar Pradesh West, which confirms that
the petitioner had travelled to purchase the illegal weapon from Akbarpur,
Uttar Pradesh. The learned APP also relied upon various audio recordings
(annexed with the status report) which have been recovered from the phone
of the petitioner as well as the deceased, the details of which are as follows:-
a) Record 0002 being a recording between the petitioner,
his mother namely Veena Uppal, the deceased and the
deceased’s husband - It is contended that in this recording it is
revealed that the deceased had given Rs. 5 lacs to the accused
and the mother of the petitioner as well as the petitioner are
agreeing to the terms of the return of the said amount.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
b) Record 003 is a recorded conversation between the
deceased and the petitioner, whereas, Record 0007 is a
conversation between the father of the accused and the deceased
- It is contended that the said recordings clearly manifest that the
deceased was not happy with the marriage of the petitioner.
17. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State that during the pendency of the trial of the present case, the husband of
the deceased namely, Sanjay Kumar made a complaint against the present
petitioner alleging that the petitioner had threatened the witness, whilst the
petitioner was in judicial custody.
ANALYSIS
18. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.
19. Prima facie there is substance in Mr. Mathur’s submission that the
petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship as is evident from the
following extract from the testimony of deceased’s husband, namely Sanjay
Kumar, who was examined as PW-17 on 29.08.2018:
“ Accused Sunny present in the court today (correctly identified) was
in touch with my wife (deceased) and they also used to long talk
with each other on mobile phones. They were in touch from the last
7-8 years from the date of incident and they have developed
relationship with each other. Accused started coming at my house
in my absence and when I came to know about the same I had asked
the accused not to come at my home in m absence. On few the
occasions, he came to my house in my presence and I have asked
accused not to come at my house. On number of occasions, accused
took my wife out of the home in my absence. Initially, I had gone
with accused out of home, but when I came to know about his
conduct with regard to my wife, I avoided to go with him. ”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
20. It is also the case of the prosecution in the supplementary chargesheet
that many photographs were recovered from the phone of the deceased
which showed the close relations between the petitioner and the deceased.
The relevant part of the supplementary chargesheet reads as under:-
“ On examination of report it has been observed that mobile phone
Samsung marked found in laboratory as MP1, containing two SIM
card marked as SC1 & SC2 and one memory card marked as MC1
which was in use with accused Naveen Uppal @ Sunny addressed
under column No. 11 and mobile phone Motorola marked in
laboratory as MP3 which was being used deceased Anjali and in
this mobile phone there are many photographs of accused Naveen
Uppal, deceased Anjali and her baby gir child Roas taken in
family formation which all established closed association in
between them. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Even the son of the deceased in his examination in-chief recorded on
17.04.2017, has admitted the close relationship between the petitioner and
his family. The relevant part thereof reads as under:-
“ Accused was neighbor of my mausi. My father and my mother also
used to visit the house of my mausi. Since the accused used to visit
the house o my mausi, me and my parents came in contact with
accused Naveen and we all started talking to him. The Accused also
started visiting our house at Sector 24 Rohini. We started
celebrating the festivals together. We used to go for outing together
as we developed close relation with each other. ”
22. It thus, appears that the petitioner and the deceased were in a cordial
relationship and families of the petitioner and the deceased were known to
one another. In this view of the matter, the possibility of the petitioner and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
the deceased being involved in a consensual romantic relationship cannot be
ruled out, at this stage.
23. Notably, the defense of the petitioner from the very inception has been
that petitioner and the deceased were in a love relationship and they had
entered into a suicide pact as petitioner’s parents got him married to some
other woman against his wishes. This is also borne out from the following
extract of the testimony of ASI Tej Singh, examined as PW-7, who was the
first responder:
“ Today I have brought the PCR Call Book (Wireless log & Diary).
As per the register brought by me the first call in the present case
was received by me at 8:26 am on 10.05.2016. The entry was nade
by me in my handwriting at page no.111 in PCR Call Book
(Wireless log and Diary). At the request of Ld. Defence counsel,
photocopy of the said entry is taken on record which is Ex.PW7/DA
(OSR). I do not remember if senior officer had interrogated the
accused at the spot in my presence. (Vol. I had offered water to the
accused and later on I removed the dead body of deceased Anjali.
I remained at the spot approximately for about 1 hour. During
this time I came to know that accused Naveen Uppal had
informed that he was having love affair with Anjali but his
parents had got married against his wishes with some other girl
and today he i.e. accused Naveen along with Anjali was roaming
in the area of Delhi University around 7:40/7:45 pm and Anjali
had shot herself with desi katta and he i.e. accused Naveen Uppal
had also tried to shot himself with desi katta but bullet struck
(fans gayi) and Anjali fell down on the left front seat of the car) ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. Prima facie there also appears to be merit in the submission of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the suicide pact
between the petitioner and the deceased, after the deceased committed
suicide when the petitioner tried to commit suicide, the bullet got stuck and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
the country made pistol did not fire. The report of the FSL which has been
filed along with the supplementary charge sheet clearly states that although
the country made pistol was found to be in normal working order but the
cartridge recovered from the petitioner did not fire despite many attempts. It
is also not the case of the prosecution that any other cartridge was recovered
from the petitioner. The relevant part of the report reads as under:-
“ RESULTS OF EXAMINATION/OPINION
(1) The exhibit marked F1 is a firearm as defined in Arms Act.
It an improvised pistol, capable of chambering and firing standard
9mm ammunition.
(2) Four 9mm cartridges received in laboratory for test firing
and two 9mm cartridges taken from laboratory stock were
chambered and successful test fired through exhibit improvised
pistol marked F1 in the laboratory. Hence, it is opined that exhibit
improvised pistol marked F1 is in normal working order.
(3) Many attempts have been made to test fire exhibit 9mm
cartridge marked A1, but resulted into misfire. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. One of the motives attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution is
that the deceased and her husband had advanced some money to the
petitioner, which he was not returning. However, a perusal of the transcript
of the conversation relied upon by the learned APP, shows that the petitioner
as well as his mother, namely Veena Uppal, had already agreed to return the
money, which raises a doubt about the motive attributed to the petitioner for
committing the murder of the deceased. Similarly, the petitioner also
expressed his fondness for the deceased. This contradicts the prosecution
version that when deceased refused to leave the petitioner, he killed her.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
26. Prima facie there is also substance in the contention of the learned
senior counsel that the transcript of the audio recording dated 09.05.2016 i.e.
the day immediately prior to the date of the alleged incident i.e. 10.05.2016
shows that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a suicide pact.
A perusal of the transcript of the audio recording (annexed as Annexure-8 to
the paperbook), which has not been disputed by the State in its status report,
manifests that the deceased had in no uncertain terms expressed her love for
the petitioner and stated to the petitioner that she cannot live without him.
The deceased had also expressed her desire to not continue her life without
the company of the petitioner, similarly, the petitioner also expressed his
1
fondness for the deceased.
This contradicts the prosecution’s version that
when deceased refused to leave the petitioner, he killed her.
27. It is trite that detailed and elaborate appreciation of evidence cannot
be undertaken at the stage of considering a bail application. However, for the
limited purpose of seeing whether there exists a prima facie case in favour of
the accused warranting grant of bail, the evidence can be looked into for
indicating reasons therefor. Reference may be had to the observations of the
Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharastra,
(2018) 11 SCC 458 , which read as under:-
“ 29. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well
settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the
stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for
1
Pages 194, 200, 201, 202 of the paperbook.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non
application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail
to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also
before granting bail; they are:
a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case
of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. ”
28. Though probative and the evidentiary value of the testimonies and
other evidence will be seen by the learned Trial Court at an appropriate
stage, however, at this juncture while considering the petitioner’s application
for bail, the possibility of the petitioner and the deceased being involved in a
consensual romantic relationship and the deceased partaking in a suicide
pact with petitioner and shooting herself, cannot be discounted. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence, which have
been referred to only for limited purpose of deciding the present bail
application, clearly tilts the balance in favour of granting bail to the
petitioner.
29. It is not the case of the prosecution in the status report that the
petitioner has jumped the interim bail granted to him on different occasions
as well as the interim bail granted as per the guidelines issued by the High
Powered Committee. Even otherwise, the petitioner is a permanent resident
of Delhi, thus, there is no reason to believe that the petitioner will flee from
administration of justice in case enlarged on bail.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
30. Even the apprehension of the learned APP that the petitioner may
influence material witnesses cannot be sustained, in as much as, all public
witnesses stand examined.
31. Further, it cannot be overlooked that the prosecution has cited as
many as 64 witnesses, out of which only 24 witnesses have been examined
in the last 7 years. Needless to say, that it is going to be a protracted trial. In
the given circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the
petitioner behind bars. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep the
petitioner in jail for an indefinite period for an offence which may ultimately
be found not to have been committed by him, especially when there is
material on record which has the prospect of probabilizing the defence of the
petitioner.
32. Considering the above discussed circumstances in entirety, I am of the
view that the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail pending trial.
Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount,
subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CMM, further
subject to the following conditions.
a) Petitioner shall not leave limits of Delhi/NCR.
b) Petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, before the
Trial Court at the time furnishing bail bond/surety bond.
c) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and
when the matter is taken up for hearing.
d) Petitioner shall provide all mobile numbers to the IO
concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52
shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior
intimation to the Investigating officer concerned.
e) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the present case.
33. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of considering the bail application and the same shall not be deemed
to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
34. The petition stands disposed of.
35. Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for necessary information and compliance.
36. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
37. Order be uploaded on the website of the Court.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
N.S. ASWAL
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1938/2023 Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:21.11.2023
12:26:52