Full Judgment Text
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision : 19 November, 2012
+ BAIL APPLN. 1565/2012
GOPAL GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Mukul Rohatgi and
Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior
Advocates instructed by Mr.Rajiv
Sirohi, Mr.Kapil Sankhla,
Ms.Meghna Sankhla, Ms.Diksha
and Mr.Bharat Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Addl.
Solicitor General & Mr.Rajesh
Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel
for State with Mr.Pramod Kumar
Dubey, Mr.Yashpreet Singh,
Mr.Shiv Pandey, Mr.Amit Singh
Rathod, Mr.Rohit Gupta,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
%
1. This is an application moved under Section 439 CrPC read with
Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner Gopal Goyal praying for bail in case
FIR No.178/2012 under Sections 306/506/201/120-B/466/467/468/469/
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 1 of 22
471 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 66-A of I.T. Act, PS
Bharat Nagar, Delhi.
2. Reply to the bail application has been filed by the State.
3. On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that earlier
anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012. Thereafter
petitioner surrendered and application seeking regular bail was filed by
him which was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2012 by I/C ASJ
(North West), Rohini mainly for the reason that investigation was at the
initial stage and release of accused was likely to hamper the
investigation, if granted bail.
4. Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that investigation is complete and charge sheet has already
been filed in this case. With reference to the objection taken by the State
in the reply that bail application was not filed before the Court of Session
before moving the High Court, he submitted that the application before
the Court of Session for release on bail was not filed for the reason that
the application for grant of bail filed by the co-accused has already been
dismissed by learned ASJ. Since the petitioner was referred to as main
accused, no purpose would have been served in that situation to file bail
application before learned ASJ by this petitioner and that under Section
439 CrPC, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the bail
application so there is no legal requirement requiring the petitioner to
first approach the Court of Session before filing application under
Section 439 CrPC in High Court.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 2 of 22
5. While referring to the sequence of events leading to commission
of suicide by Geetika Sharma, it has been submitted that as per record,
th
she joined MDLR Airlines on 18 October, 2006. She has committed
th th
suicide on the intervening night of 4 /5 August, 2012. Thus, she has
committed suicide after almost about six years of her joining the
company of the petitioner. It has been submitted that at the most, it can
be a case of infatuation of the petitioner for the deceased but in that
circumstance, he would like her to be with him and not instigate her or
create a circumstance compelling her to take the extreme step. Referring
to the alleged abortion got done by Geetika Sharma, it has been
submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that he has taken
her to the doctor or made any telephone call or in any manner connected
with the said abortion.
6. It has been further submitted that the family of the deceased and
that of the petitioner were having good relations so much so that on
25.06.2012 Geetika Sharma joined MBA in IILM College which was
sponsored by the company of the petitioner. The allegations made in
suicide note are general in nature and mere reading of the same does not
suggest as to how the petitioner can be held liable for abetting
commission of suicide by Geetika. There might be some turmoil in her
mind about which the petitioner had no knowledge and he could not have
been said to have abetted, if she committed suicide for whatsoever
reason. It has been urged that the petitioner cannot be kept in custody by
way of punishment and no purpose is going to be served by detaining
him in custody when investigation is already complete.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 3 of 22
7. Referring to the charge sheet wherein it is mentioned that further
investigation is on, it is submitted that FIR was registered under Section
306 IPC and subsequently other offences have been added. Charge sheet
has been submitted and if any further investigation is to be conducted, on
this very ground, the bail cannot be denied to the petitioner.
8. Referring to the alleged pressure on deceased to return from
Dubai, Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
this Court should take note of the date when the deceased left for Dubai,
when she returned from there and when she joined the company of the
petitioner. Referring to various date, he submitted that after leaving the
th
company of the petitioner, she left on 29 June, 2010 and returned on
th th
24 August, 2010 but joined the petitioner‟s company only on 13
January, 2011 as Director at MDLR Corporate Officer. This time gap
between her return from Dubai and joining the company of the petitioner
itself shows that there was no pressure on her to join the petitioner‟s
company. While praying for grant of bail to the petitioner as
investigation is complete, it was urged that record regarding mobile
phone is available with the service provider which cannot be tampered
with by the petitioner. He has never absconded and he was only seeking
th
his remedy under the law to obtain anticipatory bail. On 17 August,
2012, his anticipatory bail application was dismissed and on the very
th
next day i.e. on 18 August, 2012, he surrendered in this case and since
then he is in custody.
9. Learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that no
doubt, a young life has been lost but petitioner cannot be punished by
detaining him custody even before he is convicted when investigation is
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 4 of 22
complete and whatever material, the prosecuting agency wants to prove
on record, has been collected. Further investigation in the case may
continue for an indefinite time and that cannot bar the relief of bail to the
petitioner. Referring to the status of the petitioner, it has been submitted
that he is MLA and was also a Minister in Haryana. He has roots in
society and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice, he will face
trial but during pendency of trial, he should be allowed to remain on bail
as neither there is any apprehension of tampering with the evidence nor
of his absconding during trial. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on (1) Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 26; (2) Dasrath vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 198; (3)
Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 628; (4) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1088; (5) Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State
of Haryana (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 215; (6) Sanju @ Sanjay
Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1141
and (7) Shri Ram vs. State of U.P. 1975 Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 87 in support of his contention that no case for abetment of
suicide is made out against the present petitioner and no purpose will be
served by detaining him in custody, hence he may be enlarged on bail.
10. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has
contended that the petitioner has filed his bail application suppressing the
material facts including the bail order passed by Court of Session in the
case of co-accused. The petitioner has also not approached the Court of
Session to seek bail after filing of the charge sheet and directly
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 5 of 22
approached the High Court which is improper. He has further submitted
that on merits also, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner as he
is highly influential person and if released on bail, likely to prejudice the
case of prosecution by influencing the witnesses. Learned Addl.
Solicitor General for State has referred to the newspaper reports and the
photos of hoardings, placed on record wherein the petitioner was shown
th
to be the Chief Guest for the function to be held on 14 November, 2012
despite the fact that he had not been granted bail by any Court for that
date.
11. Referring to the post-mortem report wherein it was opined that
„there are findings to suggest that the deceased was habituated to vaginal
and anal penetration‟, it has been submitted that this cannot be termed as
infatuation and as an individual, she had every right to say „NO‟ to all
these things. He also referred to the suicide note wherein apart from co-
accused, the petitioner had been made responsible for compelling her to
take the extreme step. He also referred to the statement of the mother
and brother of the deceased just preceding the dates when she committed
suicide in support of his contention that she was being pressurized to join
the company of the petitioner and when the deceased felt that she was
left with no other option, after writing suicide note, she took the extreme
step.
12. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has
further submitted that the petitioner has already tampered with the
evidence by destroying the hard disc and mobile phone for which he has
also been chargesheeted for committing the offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 6 of 22
13. Learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has referred to the
charge sheet to show that as to in what manner the deceased was
instigated and a situation was created wherein she had no option but to
take the extreme step which were detailed in pages No.33 to 37 of the
charge sheet. It has been further submitted that seven prosecution
witnesses are employees of the petitioner and if he is enlarged on bail, he
is likely to influence these witnesses. While opposing the prayer for
release of petitioner on bail, Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor
General, has relied upon (1) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and
Anr. (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460 and (2) Pratapbhai
Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and Another JT 2012 (10) SC
286 .
14. Learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has also submitted that
the case is at the stage of committal and this Court may direct that matter
be heard on day-to-day basis and trial be expedited. The prosecution will
make efforts to get the trial concluded within six months.
15. First of all, I deal with the contention of the parties as to whether
without moving the Court of Session, the petitioner could have filed bail
application before this Court. In this regard, reference can be made of
Smt. Manisha Neema vs. State of M.P. 2003 (2) MPLJ 587 wherein it
was observed as under :
„Long back, this Court, in the case of Dainy alias Raju v. State of
M.P. (1989 JLJ 232) Hon. Justice R.C. Lahoti (now Judge of the
Supreme Court) has held that though under Sections 438 and 439
of the Cr.PC there is concurrent jurisdiction, but the application
should be filed first before the Court of Session and on failure
before that Court, the application should be filed before the High
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 7 of 22
Court accompanied with the first order of Sessions Court and also
mentioning all the relevant facts. His Lordship, in Paras 19, 20
and 21 has given detailed reasons for holding so. For
convenience, the same are reproduced below :--
"19. The jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session under
Section 439, Cr.PC being concurrent, as a matter of practice, the
bail applicants are required ordinarily to approach the Court of
Session in the first instance and if relief is denied they approach
the High Court under Section 439, Cr.PC itself, not as a Superior
Court sitting in appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the order
of the Court of Session, but because the Superior Court can still
exercise its own jurisdiction independently, unaffected by the
result of exercise by the Court of Session because the latter is an
Inferior Court though vested with concurrent jurisdiction. The
application seeking bail before the High Court is accompanied by
an order of the Court of Session rejecting a similar prayer. The
idea is to provide the Superior Court with an advantage of
aprising itself with the grounds as considerations which prevailed
with the Court of Session in taking the view which it did. It has
come to my notice in several cases that the first order of the Court
of Session rejecting a prayer for bail is a detailed order and when
another application is repeated before the same Court, the
subsequent order rejects the application simply by stating that
earlier application having been rejected on merits, the Court did
not see any reason to take different view of the matter. The latter
order is not a detailed one. This subsequent order is filed before
the High Court to fulfil the formality but the inevitable
consequence is that the High Court is deprived of the opportunity
of apprising itself with the reasons which formed foundation for
rejection of the prayer by the Sessions Court. The possibility
cannot be ruled out that such a course is adopted purposely
because the bail applicant does not feel comfortable before the
High Court in the presence of a detailed order of the Court of
Session rejecting the prayer for bail.
To sum up the disciplines of the system are :--
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 8 of 22
(i) in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shahzad Hasan
Khan (supra), a subsequent application for bail in the same
jurisdiction, must be placed before the same Judge (so long as he
is available) before whom had come up the earlier application,
with whatever result.
(ii) a subsequent application for bail must mention all the earlier
or pending attempt to that and made before the High Court as well
as the Court of Session alongwith their fate.
(iii) while moving an application for bail before the High Court,
the application ought ordinarily to be accompanied by the order of
the Court of Session rejecting the first prayer for bail and
containing reasons, unless dispensed with.
(iv) a bail petition is expected to incorporate a statement as to all
facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in
support of his prayer so that whatever is putforth before the Court
does not vanish in thin air, but is retained in the record, though
there is no format prescribed for bail applications; if any
statement is likely to be controverted by the opposite party, the
party would do well to support its statement by an affidavit or
documents, as advised.
A question may be posed whether these requirements falling
within the domain of format or procedural requirements only,
laying down rules of discipline only can be treated so imperative
as to override the substantive law of bails, negativing the right or
privilege for failure of compliance therewith. The requirements
have a laudible purpose, principle and policy behind. They have
been projected by judicial wisdom founded on judicial
experience. The rightful result must be achieved by rightful
means. That is the rule of law. If bifocul interests of justice to the
individual involved and the society affected [as spoken of in
Babusingh and others (supra)], are to be secured, if fallacies as
to bail jurisdiction are to be removed; if fairness in dispensation
of criminal justice has to be retained, nay brightened, if abuse of
process of law is to be avoided, and if unwanted practice/tactics
are to be curbed; these rules of discipline have to be treated as
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 9 of 22
imperative. A failure to observe them may be destructive of the
very purpose sought to be achieved."
*
A bald reading of these paragraphs vis-a-vis the application filed
by the applicant together, the application of the applicant is not
satisfying the test.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The view taken in the case of Dany alias Raju (supra), by this
Court has also been taken in the case of Abdul Rashid Khan v.
State of M.P. [1993 (1) MPWN 35]. It is held in this case that
"though this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Session under Section 438 and 439, Cr.PC yet the petitioner ought
to have approached the Court of Session at the first instance which
could have examined the facts and passed a suitable order and
may be that in case the petitioner was not required to apply to this
Court". But, this application was finally heard by this Court,
because the same was admitted for final hearing.
Again, this Court has taken the view in the case of Madan Mohan
Kichloo v. State of M.P. and Anr. [1996 (II) MPJR 400] that
though concurrent jurisdiction for filing the application under
Section 439, Cr.PC either before the Sessions Court or the High
Court, but in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (AIR 1978 SC 179), it is the
duty of the petitioner to have approached the Court of Magistrate
initially.
Considering all these judgments of this Court, Le., (1) Dany alias
Raju v. State of M.P. (1989 JLJ 323), (2) Abdul Rashid Khan v.
State of M.P. [1993 (1) MPWN Note 35] and (3) Madan Mohan
Kichloo v. State of M.P. and Anr. [1996 (II) MPJR 400], this
Court is of the opinion that in the light of the observations and
directions made by this Court in Paras 19, 20 and 21 on Dany's
case (supra), the applicant should have filed the application at the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 10 of 22
first instance before the Court of Session and thereafter, if it was
rejected, he could have approached this Court.‟
16. However, since this bail application is listed for hearing and the
petitioner is reluctant to move the Court of Session in view of the
dismissal of the bail application of the co-accused, his bail application is
being heard.
17. The petitioner is seeking bail in a case under Sections
306/506/201/120-B/466/467/468/469/471 read with Section 34 IPC and
under Section 66-A, I.T. Act. The gesture of the prosecution to expedite
the trial and conclude within six months, though deserves to be
appreciated but when the case is yet to be committed to the Court of
Session and trial is yet to begin, it is not desirable at this stage to pass
any direction to conduct trial on day to day basis and conclude it within
six months.
18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra)
emphasizing that the approach of the Court should be to enlarge the
petitioner on bail rather than to keep him in custody for an indefinite
period. I find that the observations made to the above effect in Sanjay
Chandra‟s case are of no benefit to the petitioner for the reason that in
Sanjay Chandra‟s case the Apex Court has taken into account that
longest sentence in that case which could be awarded, was 7 years and
the documentary evidence was so voluminous that the trial would have
taken long time to conclude, so much so, that lengthy trial may prolong
beyond maximum sentence awardable under the relevant law.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 11 of 22
19. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan 2004
CriLJ 1796 , it was held that :
„The mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged
on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future either by itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail
when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe.‟
20. In the present case, the petitioner has not been chargesheeted for
economic offence nor trial is likely to take a long time. Mr.Sidharth
Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has already submitted that trial
will be conducted expeditiously in this case.
21. Reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on
Dasrath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) is misplaced as it was an
appeal preferred before Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a dowry death case
after the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
22. The petitioner has also placed reliance on Madan Mohan Singh
vs. State of Gujarat and Another (Supra) wherein it was a case
registered under Sections 306 & 107 IPC. In the said case suicide was
committed by the driver blaming his superior officer in the suicide note.
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing was dismissed by
the High Court against which criminal appeal was preferred before the
Supreme Court. While dealing with the situation as existing in that case,
it was held that merely because a person had grudge against his superior
officers and committed suicide on account of that grudge even honestly
feeling that he was wronged, it would not be a proper allegation for
basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. In the present case, the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 12 of 22
relationship between the deceased and the petitioner is not alleged to be
restricted to that of employee-employer only. The abortion, post-mortem
report and suicide note indicate that the extreme step was allegedly taken
by the deceased not because of existence of a normal employer-
employee relationship, but for the relations other than that.
23. Similarly, I find that reference made by learned senior counsel for
the petitioner to the decision of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
(Supra) wherein wife committed suicide for which the husband was held
responsible, has no application to the facts of the present case, as in that
case on being convicted for commission of offence under Section 498-A
IPC, on the basis of presumption drawn under Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, the appellant/husband of the deceased was convicted
under Section 306 IPC. He preferred appeal and it was held that in given
facts, presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could
not have been drawn to convict him under Section 306 IPC. In the instant
case, the charge sheet filed against the accused is not on the basis of any
allegation of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and presumption to be
drawn under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
24. Similarly, reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner on Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana (Supra) is of no
help to the petitioner. It was a case of suicide by the wife with the
allegation that the appellant, her husband was a sexual pervert and
behaved like animals and defamed her as being a lesbian. So this case
also has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next referred to Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (Supra) to emphasize as to what
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 13 of 22
constitutes instigation. In that case, the appellant moved the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge without any result,
hence preferred appeal before the Apex Court. Suffice is to mention that
in the case at hand, this Court is dealing with the bail application and
whether prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against
the petitioner or not is yet to be dealt with by the Trial Court. Any
discussion on this issue is likely to prejudice the petitioner as well as the
prosecution and while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner
this Court is not required to give a finding as to whether the facts of the
case constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC or not. Hence the
reliance placed by the petitioner on Sanju‟s case is of no use to him.
26. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the
case of Shri Ram vs. State of U.P. 1975 Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 87 wherein the appellant was tried in a murder case for
committing murder of an Advocate and the role attributed to her was that
she shouted “Vakil has come” and on her shouting the other accused
persons attacked the deceased. After conviction and on dismissal of
appeal by the High Court of Allahabad, the appeal by special leave was
preferred before the Supreme Court and in the facts of the said case it
was held that in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that
V gave shout cannot be disturbed and it was further held:-
“Whether by so doing she intended to facilitate the murder of K is
another question. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must
be shown to have “intentionally” aided the commission of the
crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been
committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not
enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. It is not
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 14 of 22
enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and
therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment
under the third paragraph of Section 107.”
27. This decision has also no relevance while disposing of the bail
application of the present petitioner, as this Court does not have to arrive
at any conclusion whether the alleged act attributed to the petitioner
amounts to abetment or not.
28. Learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr.Sidharth Luthra has placed
reliance on Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (Supra) to bring
on record as to what constitutes abetment. I find that since the said case
dealt with framing of charge, while disposing of the bail application, this
Court need not to consider whether the material collected by the
prosecution constitutes ingredients of the offences for which the
petitioner has been chargesheeted.
29. The petitioner is seeking his release on bail mainly on the
following grounds:-
(i) The year of joining MDLR Airlines is 2006, whereas suicide has
been committed in August, 2012 i.e., almost after a period of six years
and this long duration, for which she served MDLR Airlines, shows that
she was serving without any grievance.
(ii) The deceased belonged to an educated family and she was living
with them. The family of the petitioner and that of the deceased had
visiting terms and family relations.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 15 of 22
(iii) At the most, as per the prosecution, petitioner was having
infatuation for the deceased and if it is taken to be so then the petitioner
could not have instigated her to commit suicide.
th
(iv) The deceased joined MDLR Airlines on 18 October, 2006 as
st
Trainee Cabin Crew and continued to serve till 31 March, 2009. She left
th
MDLR Airlines to join Emirates Airlines, where she worked till 12
August, 2010. She re-joined MDLR Airlines as Director, Corporate
th
Office on 13 January, 2011, which shows that she was under no
pressure to join MDLR immediately on her return from Dubai.
(v) The petitioner‟s company sponsored the deceased to join MBA in
th
IILM College on 25 June, 2012 and Rs.6 lacs were provided for the
same which further shows that petitioner facilitated the ambition of
deceased to join MBA just about 1½ months prior to this occurrence and
could not have abetted the commission of suicide.
(vi) Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged abortion of the
deceased as neither he accompanied her to the Doctor nor in any other
way instrumental in getting her abortion done.
(vii) The allegations made in the two notes do not constitute the offence
under Section 306 IPC.
(viii) The petitioner is representative of the people as MLA and was also
the Minister in Haryana Government, he has roots in the society and
there is no possibility of his thwarting the course of justice.
30. In the case Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat
and Anr. – 2012 (10) SCALE 237 , the Apex Court had referred to
various decisions, laying down the guidelines to be considered by the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 16 of 22
Court while granting bail in non-bailable offences. The relevant paras are
as under:
„15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain authorities
which lay down the considerations that should weigh with the
Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court in State
v. Capt. Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0139/1961 : (1962) 3 SCR 622
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118 has held that the nature
and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the
trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with;
the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar
factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the
case are to be considered. The said principles have been reiterated
in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.
MANU/SC/0017/2005 : (2005) 2 SCC 13.
16. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Anr.
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280, this Court has culled
out the principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing
bail. In that context, the two-Judge Bench has stated that while
granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character,
behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the
bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 17 of 22
not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In State of U.P. through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21, while emphasizing on
the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration, this
Court has expressed thus: -
While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the
accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will
use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then
bail will be refused.
In the said case, the Bench has also observed as follows: -
Therefore, the general rule that this Court will not ordinarily
interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where
there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements
for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court.
18. Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu
and Anr. JT 2012 (9) SC 155, this Court while dealing with
individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as
under: -
It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be
accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal
which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The
prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should
prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical
formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only application of mind but also
exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law
and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it
that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized
society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 18 of 22
responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which
every well-meaning person desires.
19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished
value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it
for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to
scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie
case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality
of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other
aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of
certain conditions.‟
th
31. The prosecution has placed on record two notes, one dated 4
th
May, 2012 and another suicide note dated 4 August, 2012 and suicide
th
has been committed by Geetika on the night intervening 4/5 May, 2012,
which indicates that the extreme step has not been taken by Geetika in
haste. In what circumstances, she was compelled to take the extreme step
is indicated in the charge sheet.
32. The contention of the petitioner that deceased was employed with
MDLR Airlines for about six years, except for a short duration when she
left for Dubai to join Emirates, is no ground to release him on bail for the
reason that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are grave,
indicating how on the strength of money power, the deceased was
sexually exploited in the garb of employment. Her post mortem report
and contents of suicide note indicate that the relationship between the
petitioner and deceased was not restricted to that of employer and
employee.
33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rohtagi submitted
that the deceased was living with and belonged to an educated family but
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 19 of 22
during this long tenure, at no point of time, the parents of the deceased
had any grievance. This submission of the learned counsel does not
entitle the petitioner to the benefit of being released on bail, as the
grievance could have been there only if the parents or the family is aware
of the alleged sexual exploitation of the deceased and at this stage when
it is claimed that there was family relations between the two families, it
cannot be said that whatever was happening, had the approval of the
family or they were aware of the physical and mental trauma to which
the deceased was allegedly subjected to through which she was
undergoing at the time when she decided to put an end to her life.
34. It is settled legal position that the courts are not supposed to
explore the merits of the case in detail while considering the prayer for
grant of bail, which depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
35. In the instant case, trial is yet to begin and allegations against the
petitioner are very serious. A young life has been lost because the
deceased felt that despite the petitioner being forgiven number of times,
he again misused their innocence and trust. She felt that she was
shattered inside and her life had been made abnormal by the persons
named in the suicide note.
36. Coming to the issue of release of the petitioner on bail on filing of
the charge sheet against him, I am of the view that apprehension of the
prosecution that if enlarged on bail, at least seven witnesses, who are
employees of the petitioner, are likely to be influenced, is not mis-
founded. Further, in view of the submissions made before the Court that
before surrendering in this case, material evidence was destroyed by the
petitioner for which he has been chargesheeted for the offence
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 20 of 22
punishable under Section 201 IPC, persuade this Court to decline the
relief as in the given facts and circumstances brought on record in the
charge sheet, the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be
ruled out.
37. This Court has to ensure that a fair trial takes place and accused is
not in a position to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. No
doubt, while considering the prayer for release on bail, this Court has to
draw a balance between the gravity of the offence and interest of the
society by securing justice to the society. In view of the status of the
petitioner, he may have roots in the society but at the same time, it
cannot be ignored that he is having position and power, thus capable of
influencing the witnesses, which may cause serious prejudice to the case
of prosecution.
38. The submissions made by learned Addl. Solicitor General that the
trial shall be expedited in this case is another reason to decline the prayer
for release on bail for the reason that the petitioner has surrendered only
th
on 18 August, 2012 and not only charge sheet has been submitted,
shortly the case is likely to be committed to the Court of Sessions.
39. Since grant of bail depends on facts and circumstances of each
case, consequently, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of this case
and considering the nature and gravity of offence, especially, the
apprehension expressed by the State about the likelihood of the witnesses
being influenced and evidence being tampered with, this Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
40. Application is dismissed.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 21 of 22
41. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing
with the contentions of the parties shall not prejudice to the case of either
party at any stage of the trial.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
„st‟
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 22 of 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision : 19 November, 2012
+ BAIL APPLN. 1565/2012
GOPAL GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Mukul Rohatgi and
Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior
Advocates instructed by Mr.Rajiv
Sirohi, Mr.Kapil Sankhla,
Ms.Meghna Sankhla, Ms.Diksha
and Mr.Bharat Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Addl.
Solicitor General & Mr.Rajesh
Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel
for State with Mr.Pramod Kumar
Dubey, Mr.Yashpreet Singh,
Mr.Shiv Pandey, Mr.Amit Singh
Rathod, Mr.Rohit Gupta,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
%
1. This is an application moved under Section 439 CrPC read with
Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner Gopal Goyal praying for bail in case
FIR No.178/2012 under Sections 306/506/201/120-B/466/467/468/469/
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 1 of 22
471 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 66-A of I.T. Act, PS
Bharat Nagar, Delhi.
2. Reply to the bail application has been filed by the State.
3. On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that earlier
anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012. Thereafter
petitioner surrendered and application seeking regular bail was filed by
him which was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2012 by I/C ASJ
(North West), Rohini mainly for the reason that investigation was at the
initial stage and release of accused was likely to hamper the
investigation, if granted bail.
4. Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that investigation is complete and charge sheet has already
been filed in this case. With reference to the objection taken by the State
in the reply that bail application was not filed before the Court of Session
before moving the High Court, he submitted that the application before
the Court of Session for release on bail was not filed for the reason that
the application for grant of bail filed by the co-accused has already been
dismissed by learned ASJ. Since the petitioner was referred to as main
accused, no purpose would have been served in that situation to file bail
application before learned ASJ by this petitioner and that under Section
439 CrPC, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the bail
application so there is no legal requirement requiring the petitioner to
first approach the Court of Session before filing application under
Section 439 CrPC in High Court.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 2 of 22
5. While referring to the sequence of events leading to commission
of suicide by Geetika Sharma, it has been submitted that as per record,
th
she joined MDLR Airlines on 18 October, 2006. She has committed
th th
suicide on the intervening night of 4 /5 August, 2012. Thus, she has
committed suicide after almost about six years of her joining the
company of the petitioner. It has been submitted that at the most, it can
be a case of infatuation of the petitioner for the deceased but in that
circumstance, he would like her to be with him and not instigate her or
create a circumstance compelling her to take the extreme step. Referring
to the alleged abortion got done by Geetika Sharma, it has been
submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that he has taken
her to the doctor or made any telephone call or in any manner connected
with the said abortion.
6. It has been further submitted that the family of the deceased and
that of the petitioner were having good relations so much so that on
25.06.2012 Geetika Sharma joined MBA in IILM College which was
sponsored by the company of the petitioner. The allegations made in
suicide note are general in nature and mere reading of the same does not
suggest as to how the petitioner can be held liable for abetting
commission of suicide by Geetika. There might be some turmoil in her
mind about which the petitioner had no knowledge and he could not have
been said to have abetted, if she committed suicide for whatsoever
reason. It has been urged that the petitioner cannot be kept in custody by
way of punishment and no purpose is going to be served by detaining
him in custody when investigation is already complete.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 3 of 22
7. Referring to the charge sheet wherein it is mentioned that further
investigation is on, it is submitted that FIR was registered under Section
306 IPC and subsequently other offences have been added. Charge sheet
has been submitted and if any further investigation is to be conducted, on
this very ground, the bail cannot be denied to the petitioner.
8. Referring to the alleged pressure on deceased to return from
Dubai, Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
this Court should take note of the date when the deceased left for Dubai,
when she returned from there and when she joined the company of the
petitioner. Referring to various date, he submitted that after leaving the
th
company of the petitioner, she left on 29 June, 2010 and returned on
th th
24 August, 2010 but joined the petitioner‟s company only on 13
January, 2011 as Director at MDLR Corporate Officer. This time gap
between her return from Dubai and joining the company of the petitioner
itself shows that there was no pressure on her to join the petitioner‟s
company. While praying for grant of bail to the petitioner as
investigation is complete, it was urged that record regarding mobile
phone is available with the service provider which cannot be tampered
with by the petitioner. He has never absconded and he was only seeking
th
his remedy under the law to obtain anticipatory bail. On 17 August,
2012, his anticipatory bail application was dismissed and on the very
th
next day i.e. on 18 August, 2012, he surrendered in this case and since
then he is in custody.
9. Learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that no
doubt, a young life has been lost but petitioner cannot be punished by
detaining him custody even before he is convicted when investigation is
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 4 of 22
complete and whatever material, the prosecuting agency wants to prove
on record, has been collected. Further investigation in the case may
continue for an indefinite time and that cannot bar the relief of bail to the
petitioner. Referring to the status of the petitioner, it has been submitted
that he is MLA and was also a Minister in Haryana. He has roots in
society and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice, he will face
trial but during pendency of trial, he should be allowed to remain on bail
as neither there is any apprehension of tampering with the evidence nor
of his absconding during trial. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on (1) Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 26; (2) Dasrath vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 198; (3)
Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 628; (4) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1088; (5) Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State
of Haryana (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 215; (6) Sanju @ Sanjay
Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1141
and (7) Shri Ram vs. State of U.P. 1975 Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 87 in support of his contention that no case for abetment of
suicide is made out against the present petitioner and no purpose will be
served by detaining him in custody, hence he may be enlarged on bail.
10. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has
contended that the petitioner has filed his bail application suppressing the
material facts including the bail order passed by Court of Session in the
case of co-accused. The petitioner has also not approached the Court of
Session to seek bail after filing of the charge sheet and directly
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 5 of 22
approached the High Court which is improper. He has further submitted
that on merits also, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner as he
is highly influential person and if released on bail, likely to prejudice the
case of prosecution by influencing the witnesses. Learned Addl.
Solicitor General for State has referred to the newspaper reports and the
photos of hoardings, placed on record wherein the petitioner was shown
th
to be the Chief Guest for the function to be held on 14 November, 2012
despite the fact that he had not been granted bail by any Court for that
date.
11. Referring to the post-mortem report wherein it was opined that
„there are findings to suggest that the deceased was habituated to vaginal
and anal penetration‟, it has been submitted that this cannot be termed as
infatuation and as an individual, she had every right to say „NO‟ to all
these things. He also referred to the suicide note wherein apart from co-
accused, the petitioner had been made responsible for compelling her to
take the extreme step. He also referred to the statement of the mother
and brother of the deceased just preceding the dates when she committed
suicide in support of his contention that she was being pressurized to join
the company of the petitioner and when the deceased felt that she was
left with no other option, after writing suicide note, she took the extreme
step.
12. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has
further submitted that the petitioner has already tampered with the
evidence by destroying the hard disc and mobile phone for which he has
also been chargesheeted for committing the offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 6 of 22
13. Learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has referred to the
charge sheet to show that as to in what manner the deceased was
instigated and a situation was created wherein she had no option but to
take the extreme step which were detailed in pages No.33 to 37 of the
charge sheet. It has been further submitted that seven prosecution
witnesses are employees of the petitioner and if he is enlarged on bail, he
is likely to influence these witnesses. While opposing the prayer for
release of petitioner on bail, Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor
General, has relied upon (1) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and
Anr. (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460 and (2) Pratapbhai
Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat and Another JT 2012 (10) SC
286 .
14. Learned Addl. Solicitor General for State has also submitted that
the case is at the stage of committal and this Court may direct that matter
be heard on day-to-day basis and trial be expedited. The prosecution will
make efforts to get the trial concluded within six months.
15. First of all, I deal with the contention of the parties as to whether
without moving the Court of Session, the petitioner could have filed bail
application before this Court. In this regard, reference can be made of
Smt. Manisha Neema vs. State of M.P. 2003 (2) MPLJ 587 wherein it
was observed as under :
„Long back, this Court, in the case of Dainy alias Raju v. State of
M.P. (1989 JLJ 232) Hon. Justice R.C. Lahoti (now Judge of the
Supreme Court) has held that though under Sections 438 and 439
of the Cr.PC there is concurrent jurisdiction, but the application
should be filed first before the Court of Session and on failure
before that Court, the application should be filed before the High
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 7 of 22
Court accompanied with the first order of Sessions Court and also
mentioning all the relevant facts. His Lordship, in Paras 19, 20
and 21 has given detailed reasons for holding so. For
convenience, the same are reproduced below :--
"19. The jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Session under
Section 439, Cr.PC being concurrent, as a matter of practice, the
bail applicants are required ordinarily to approach the Court of
Session in the first instance and if relief is denied they approach
the High Court under Section 439, Cr.PC itself, not as a Superior
Court sitting in appellate or revisional jurisdiction over the order
of the Court of Session, but because the Superior Court can still
exercise its own jurisdiction independently, unaffected by the
result of exercise by the Court of Session because the latter is an
Inferior Court though vested with concurrent jurisdiction. The
application seeking bail before the High Court is accompanied by
an order of the Court of Session rejecting a similar prayer. The
idea is to provide the Superior Court with an advantage of
aprising itself with the grounds as considerations which prevailed
with the Court of Session in taking the view which it did. It has
come to my notice in several cases that the first order of the Court
of Session rejecting a prayer for bail is a detailed order and when
another application is repeated before the same Court, the
subsequent order rejects the application simply by stating that
earlier application having been rejected on merits, the Court did
not see any reason to take different view of the matter. The latter
order is not a detailed one. This subsequent order is filed before
the High Court to fulfil the formality but the inevitable
consequence is that the High Court is deprived of the opportunity
of apprising itself with the reasons which formed foundation for
rejection of the prayer by the Sessions Court. The possibility
cannot be ruled out that such a course is adopted purposely
because the bail applicant does not feel comfortable before the
High Court in the presence of a detailed order of the Court of
Session rejecting the prayer for bail.
To sum up the disciplines of the system are :--
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 8 of 22
(i) in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shahzad Hasan
Khan (supra), a subsequent application for bail in the same
jurisdiction, must be placed before the same Judge (so long as he
is available) before whom had come up the earlier application,
with whatever result.
(ii) a subsequent application for bail must mention all the earlier
or pending attempt to that and made before the High Court as well
as the Court of Session alongwith their fate.
(iii) while moving an application for bail before the High Court,
the application ought ordinarily to be accompanied by the order of
the Court of Session rejecting the first prayer for bail and
containing reasons, unless dispensed with.
(iv) a bail petition is expected to incorporate a statement as to all
facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in
support of his prayer so that whatever is putforth before the Court
does not vanish in thin air, but is retained in the record, though
there is no format prescribed for bail applications; if any
statement is likely to be controverted by the opposite party, the
party would do well to support its statement by an affidavit or
documents, as advised.
A question may be posed whether these requirements falling
within the domain of format or procedural requirements only,
laying down rules of discipline only can be treated so imperative
as to override the substantive law of bails, negativing the right or
privilege for failure of compliance therewith. The requirements
have a laudible purpose, principle and policy behind. They have
been projected by judicial wisdom founded on judicial
experience. The rightful result must be achieved by rightful
means. That is the rule of law. If bifocul interests of justice to the
individual involved and the society affected [as spoken of in
Babusingh and others (supra)], are to be secured, if fallacies as
to bail jurisdiction are to be removed; if fairness in dispensation
of criminal justice has to be retained, nay brightened, if abuse of
process of law is to be avoided, and if unwanted practice/tactics
are to be curbed; these rules of discipline have to be treated as
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 9 of 22
imperative. A failure to observe them may be destructive of the
very purpose sought to be achieved."
*
A bald reading of these paragraphs vis-a-vis the application filed
by the applicant together, the application of the applicant is not
satisfying the test.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The view taken in the case of Dany alias Raju (supra), by this
Court has also been taken in the case of Abdul Rashid Khan v.
State of M.P. [1993 (1) MPWN 35]. It is held in this case that
"though this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Session under Section 438 and 439, Cr.PC yet the petitioner ought
to have approached the Court of Session at the first instance which
could have examined the facts and passed a suitable order and
may be that in case the petitioner was not required to apply to this
Court". But, this application was finally heard by this Court,
because the same was admitted for final hearing.
Again, this Court has taken the view in the case of Madan Mohan
Kichloo v. State of M.P. and Anr. [1996 (II) MPJR 400] that
though concurrent jurisdiction for filing the application under
Section 439, Cr.PC either before the Sessions Court or the High
Court, but in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (AIR 1978 SC 179), it is the
duty of the petitioner to have approached the Court of Magistrate
initially.
Considering all these judgments of this Court, Le., (1) Dany alias
Raju v. State of M.P. (1989 JLJ 323), (2) Abdul Rashid Khan v.
State of M.P. [1993 (1) MPWN Note 35] and (3) Madan Mohan
Kichloo v. State of M.P. and Anr. [1996 (II) MPJR 400], this
Court is of the opinion that in the light of the observations and
directions made by this Court in Paras 19, 20 and 21 on Dany's
case (supra), the applicant should have filed the application at the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 10 of 22
first instance before the Court of Session and thereafter, if it was
rejected, he could have approached this Court.‟
16. However, since this bail application is listed for hearing and the
petitioner is reluctant to move the Court of Session in view of the
dismissal of the bail application of the co-accused, his bail application is
being heard.
17. The petitioner is seeking bail in a case under Sections
306/506/201/120-B/466/467/468/469/471 read with Section 34 IPC and
under Section 66-A, I.T. Act. The gesture of the prosecution to expedite
the trial and conclude within six months, though deserves to be
appreciated but when the case is yet to be committed to the Court of
Session and trial is yet to begin, it is not desirable at this stage to pass
any direction to conduct trial on day to day basis and conclude it within
six months.
18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra)
emphasizing that the approach of the Court should be to enlarge the
petitioner on bail rather than to keep him in custody for an indefinite
period. I find that the observations made to the above effect in Sanjay
Chandra‟s case are of no benefit to the petitioner for the reason that in
Sanjay Chandra‟s case the Apex Court has taken into account that
longest sentence in that case which could be awarded, was 7 years and
the documentary evidence was so voluminous that the trial would have
taken long time to conclude, so much so, that lengthy trial may prolong
beyond maximum sentence awardable under the relevant law.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 11 of 22
19. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan 2004
CriLJ 1796 , it was held that :
„The mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged
on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future either by itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail
when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe.‟
20. In the present case, the petitioner has not been chargesheeted for
economic offence nor trial is likely to take a long time. Mr.Sidharth
Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has already submitted that trial
will be conducted expeditiously in this case.
21. Reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on
Dasrath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) is misplaced as it was an
appeal preferred before Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a dowry death case
after the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
22. The petitioner has also placed reliance on Madan Mohan Singh
vs. State of Gujarat and Another (Supra) wherein it was a case
registered under Sections 306 & 107 IPC. In the said case suicide was
committed by the driver blaming his superior officer in the suicide note.
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing was dismissed by
the High Court against which criminal appeal was preferred before the
Supreme Court. While dealing with the situation as existing in that case,
it was held that merely because a person had grudge against his superior
officers and committed suicide on account of that grudge even honestly
feeling that he was wronged, it would not be a proper allegation for
basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. In the present case, the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 12 of 22
relationship between the deceased and the petitioner is not alleged to be
restricted to that of employee-employer only. The abortion, post-mortem
report and suicide note indicate that the extreme step was allegedly taken
by the deceased not because of existence of a normal employer-
employee relationship, but for the relations other than that.
23. Similarly, I find that reference made by learned senior counsel for
the petitioner to the decision of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh
(Supra) wherein wife committed suicide for which the husband was held
responsible, has no application to the facts of the present case, as in that
case on being convicted for commission of offence under Section 498-A
IPC, on the basis of presumption drawn under Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, the appellant/husband of the deceased was convicted
under Section 306 IPC. He preferred appeal and it was held that in given
facts, presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could
not have been drawn to convict him under Section 306 IPC. In the instant
case, the charge sheet filed against the accused is not on the basis of any
allegation of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and presumption to be
drawn under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
24. Similarly, reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner on Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana (Supra) is of no
help to the petitioner. It was a case of suicide by the wife with the
allegation that the appellant, her husband was a sexual pervert and
behaved like animals and defamed her as being a lesbian. So this case
also has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next referred to Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (Supra) to emphasize as to what
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 13 of 22
constitutes instigation. In that case, the appellant moved the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge without any result,
hence preferred appeal before the Apex Court. Suffice is to mention that
in the case at hand, this Court is dealing with the bail application and
whether prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against
the petitioner or not is yet to be dealt with by the Trial Court. Any
discussion on this issue is likely to prejudice the petitioner as well as the
prosecution and while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner
this Court is not required to give a finding as to whether the facts of the
case constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC or not. Hence the
reliance placed by the petitioner on Sanju‟s case is of no use to him.
26. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the
case of Shri Ram vs. State of U.P. 1975 Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 87 wherein the appellant was tried in a murder case for
committing murder of an Advocate and the role attributed to her was that
she shouted “Vakil has come” and on her shouting the other accused
persons attacked the deceased. After conviction and on dismissal of
appeal by the High Court of Allahabad, the appeal by special leave was
preferred before the Supreme Court and in the facts of the said case it
was held that in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that
V gave shout cannot be disturbed and it was further held:-
“Whether by so doing she intended to facilitate the murder of K is
another question. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must
be shown to have “intentionally” aided the commission of the
crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been
committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not
enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. It is not
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 14 of 22
enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and
therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment
under the third paragraph of Section 107.”
27. This decision has also no relevance while disposing of the bail
application of the present petitioner, as this Court does not have to arrive
at any conclusion whether the alleged act attributed to the petitioner
amounts to abetment or not.
28. Learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr.Sidharth Luthra has placed
reliance on Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (Supra) to bring
on record as to what constitutes abetment. I find that since the said case
dealt with framing of charge, while disposing of the bail application, this
Court need not to consider whether the material collected by the
prosecution constitutes ingredients of the offences for which the
petitioner has been chargesheeted.
29. The petitioner is seeking his release on bail mainly on the
following grounds:-
(i) The year of joining MDLR Airlines is 2006, whereas suicide has
been committed in August, 2012 i.e., almost after a period of six years
and this long duration, for which she served MDLR Airlines, shows that
she was serving without any grievance.
(ii) The deceased belonged to an educated family and she was living
with them. The family of the petitioner and that of the deceased had
visiting terms and family relations.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 15 of 22
(iii) At the most, as per the prosecution, petitioner was having
infatuation for the deceased and if it is taken to be so then the petitioner
could not have instigated her to commit suicide.
th
(iv) The deceased joined MDLR Airlines on 18 October, 2006 as
st
Trainee Cabin Crew and continued to serve till 31 March, 2009. She left
th
MDLR Airlines to join Emirates Airlines, where she worked till 12
August, 2010. She re-joined MDLR Airlines as Director, Corporate
th
Office on 13 January, 2011, which shows that she was under no
pressure to join MDLR immediately on her return from Dubai.
(v) The petitioner‟s company sponsored the deceased to join MBA in
th
IILM College on 25 June, 2012 and Rs.6 lacs were provided for the
same which further shows that petitioner facilitated the ambition of
deceased to join MBA just about 1½ months prior to this occurrence and
could not have abetted the commission of suicide.
(vi) Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged abortion of the
deceased as neither he accompanied her to the Doctor nor in any other
way instrumental in getting her abortion done.
(vii) The allegations made in the two notes do not constitute the offence
under Section 306 IPC.
(viii) The petitioner is representative of the people as MLA and was also
the Minister in Haryana Government, he has roots in the society and
there is no possibility of his thwarting the course of justice.
30. In the case Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat
and Anr. – 2012 (10) SCALE 237 , the Apex Court had referred to
various decisions, laying down the guidelines to be considered by the
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 16 of 22
Court while granting bail in non-bailable offences. The relevant paras are
as under:
„15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain authorities
which lay down the considerations that should weigh with the
Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court in State
v. Capt. Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0139/1961 : (1962) 3 SCR 622
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118 has held that the nature
and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the
trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with;
the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar
factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the
case are to be considered. The said principles have been reiterated
in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.
MANU/SC/0017/2005 : (2005) 2 SCC 13.
16. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Anr.
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280, this Court has culled
out the principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing
bail. In that context, the two-Judge Bench has stated that while
granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character,
behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the
bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 17 of 22
not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In State of U.P. through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21, while emphasizing on
the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration, this
Court has expressed thus: -
While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the
accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will
use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then
bail will be refused.
In the said case, the Bench has also observed as follows: -
Therefore, the general rule that this Court will not ordinarily
interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where
there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements
for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court.
18. Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu
and Anr. JT 2012 (9) SC 155, this Court while dealing with
individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as
under: -
It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be
accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal
which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The
prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should
prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical
formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only application of mind but also
exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law
and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it
that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized
society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 18 of 22
responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which
every well-meaning person desires.
19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished
value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it
for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to
scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie
case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality
of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other
aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of
certain conditions.‟
th
31. The prosecution has placed on record two notes, one dated 4
th
May, 2012 and another suicide note dated 4 August, 2012 and suicide
th
has been committed by Geetika on the night intervening 4/5 May, 2012,
which indicates that the extreme step has not been taken by Geetika in
haste. In what circumstances, she was compelled to take the extreme step
is indicated in the charge sheet.
32. The contention of the petitioner that deceased was employed with
MDLR Airlines for about six years, except for a short duration when she
left for Dubai to join Emirates, is no ground to release him on bail for the
reason that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are grave,
indicating how on the strength of money power, the deceased was
sexually exploited in the garb of employment. Her post mortem report
and contents of suicide note indicate that the relationship between the
petitioner and deceased was not restricted to that of employer and
employee.
33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rohtagi submitted
that the deceased was living with and belonged to an educated family but
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 19 of 22
during this long tenure, at no point of time, the parents of the deceased
had any grievance. This submission of the learned counsel does not
entitle the petitioner to the benefit of being released on bail, as the
grievance could have been there only if the parents or the family is aware
of the alleged sexual exploitation of the deceased and at this stage when
it is claimed that there was family relations between the two families, it
cannot be said that whatever was happening, had the approval of the
family or they were aware of the physical and mental trauma to which
the deceased was allegedly subjected to through which she was
undergoing at the time when she decided to put an end to her life.
34. It is settled legal position that the courts are not supposed to
explore the merits of the case in detail while considering the prayer for
grant of bail, which depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
35. In the instant case, trial is yet to begin and allegations against the
petitioner are very serious. A young life has been lost because the
deceased felt that despite the petitioner being forgiven number of times,
he again misused their innocence and trust. She felt that she was
shattered inside and her life had been made abnormal by the persons
named in the suicide note.
36. Coming to the issue of release of the petitioner on bail on filing of
the charge sheet against him, I am of the view that apprehension of the
prosecution that if enlarged on bail, at least seven witnesses, who are
employees of the petitioner, are likely to be influenced, is not mis-
founded. Further, in view of the submissions made before the Court that
before surrendering in this case, material evidence was destroyed by the
petitioner for which he has been chargesheeted for the offence
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 20 of 22
punishable under Section 201 IPC, persuade this Court to decline the
relief as in the given facts and circumstances brought on record in the
charge sheet, the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be
ruled out.
37. This Court has to ensure that a fair trial takes place and accused is
not in a position to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. No
doubt, while considering the prayer for release on bail, this Court has to
draw a balance between the gravity of the offence and interest of the
society by securing justice to the society. In view of the status of the
petitioner, he may have roots in the society but at the same time, it
cannot be ignored that he is having position and power, thus capable of
influencing the witnesses, which may cause serious prejudice to the case
of prosecution.
38. The submissions made by learned Addl. Solicitor General that the
trial shall be expedited in this case is another reason to decline the prayer
for release on bail for the reason that the petitioner has surrendered only
th
on 18 August, 2012 and not only charge sheet has been submitted,
shortly the case is likely to be committed to the Court of Sessions.
39. Since grant of bail depends on facts and circumstances of each
case, consequently, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of this case
and considering the nature and gravity of offence, especially, the
apprehension expressed by the State about the likelihood of the witnesses
being influenced and evidence being tampered with, this Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
40. Application is dismissed.
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 21 of 22
41. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing
with the contentions of the parties shall not prejudice to the case of either
party at any stage of the trial.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2012
„st‟
Bail Appln.1565/2012 Page 22 of 22