Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 21 October, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021
NIDHU @ SHEELA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. F. K. Jha, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
with Insp. Gursewak Singh and
SHO/Insp. Arvind Kumar, PS
Khayala.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1684/2021
SANJAY KUMAR SAHU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. F. K. Jha, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the instant petitions under Section 439
Cr.P.C seeking bail in FIR No.313/2016 dated 21.07.2016 , registered at
Police Station Khyala for offences under Section 302 IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under –:
a) The instant FIR was lodged on the statement of Head Constable
Mahavir (No.1143/W). It is stated that on 21.07.2016 at about
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 1 of 8
6:00 PM a person namely, Sanjay Thakur (hereinafter referred
to as 'the victim/deceased') was brought to Guru Govind Singh
Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, in a severely injured condition
on an e-Rickshaw by the petitioners herein. The injured victim
was admitted in the emergency ward and was declared brought
dead. It is stated that on questioning, the petitioners told the
Head Constable Mahavir that they found the deceased in an
injured state near Sunil Dairy and that they brought him to the
hospital for the sake of humanity. It is stated that the clothes of
the petitioners were soaked in blood. The victim was declared
as brought dead. It is stated that when Head Constable Mahavir
arrived at the emergency ward, he could not find the petitioners
there. It is stated that while searching for the petitioners herein,
when Head Constable Mahavir came out of the ward, he saw
that the petitioners were at the main gate of the hospital and the
e-Rickshaw in which they had brought the deceased was also
not present there. Police was informed. On receiving the
information Police reached the spot and the statement of the
Head Constable Mahavir was recorded. On the basis of the said
statement FIR No.313/2016 dated 21.07.2016, was registered
at Police Station Khyala for offences under Section 302 IPC.
b) Investigation revealed that Nidhu Devi (petitioner in BAIL
APPLN. 1683/2021) is the wife of the deceased. Investigation
further revealed that the petitioners were residing at House No.
N-153, Gali No.3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. It was also revealed
that Nidhu Devi had gone to the village and brought the
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 2 of 8
deceased to Delhi on the pretext of getting him a job. It was
revealed that the petitioners and the deceased were living in the
same room at House No. N-153, Gali No.3, Vishnu Garden,
Delhi.
c) The MLC of the deceased records the following injuries:
a) Abrasions over parietal region.
b) swelling on the parietal and temporal region of the scalp.
c) bruising over both the eyes.
d) CLW approx 2cm x 1cm over left eyelid.
e) bruise over nose and upper lip.
f) incised wound approx 7cm x 1cm over front of the neck.
g) dried blood on nostrils and mouth.
Injury No.7 in the Post Mortem report, which has been inflicted
by a knife reads as under:
"One incised wound of size 5cm x 2cm x cartilage deep
present on the anterior aspect of neck with exposing
neck muscles and cricoid cartilage. Surface of the
wound covered by clotted blood and reddish in colour.
On exploration the underlying muscles and fascia i.e.
cricothyroid fascia cut with full thickness and cricoid
cartilage cut partly....."
d) The petitioners were arrested on 21.07.2016. Charge-sheet has
been filed. Trial has commenced.
e) Charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences
under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 3 of 8
f) The last of the bail application, filed by the petitioners, was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Tis
Hazari Courts on 07.05.2021.
g) Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing
the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners
have been in custody since 21.07.2016. He states that out of 23 witnesses, 19
witnesses have been examined. He further states that the entire case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He contends that the
petitioners were released on interim bail under the HPC Guidelines and the
interim bail was extended. The Supreme Court by an order dated 19.03.2021
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13021/12020 titled as National Forum on
Prison Reforms v. Govemment of NCT of Delhi & Ors, directed the under
trials to surrender . He states that both the petitioners surrendered in April
2021. It is stated that they have not abused the interim bail granted to them.
He further contends that even if the facts of the prosecution are admitted in
its entirety then also, at best, only a case under Section 304 Part II IPC is
made out against the petitioners and since the petitioners have already been
in custody for more than six years now, the petitioners ought to be released
on bail.
4. Per contra , Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State, vehemently
opposes the bail by contending that Nidhu Devi (petitioner in BAIL APPLN.
1683/2021) was already married. She had an extra marital affair with the
petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1684/2021. He states that both the petitioners
were living together at D-147/147, DDA Colony, Khyala, Delhi and later
they shifted to House No. N-153, Gali No.3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. He
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 4 of 8
states that only with the motive of eliminating the deceased, Nidhu Devi (the
petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021) went to his native village and
brought the deceased to her house and then both the petitioners eliminated
him. The learned APP for the State submits that PW-3 has stated that both
the petitioners were living on the third floor of his house and the deceased
started living in the same home after some time. He states that PW-3 has
categorically stated that on 21.07.2016, he heard some noise and when he
went to the room of the petitioners, he saw Nidhu Devi was cleaning the
floor, which had blood on it, and Sanjay Kumar Sahu was standing there and
the victim was lying on the floor and was breathing heavily. He further
stated that he called an e-rickshaw and sent the victim and the petitioners to
the Hospital in the e-rickshaw.
5. Heard Mr. F. K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amit
Chadha, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.
6. The petitioners are accused of an offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. The deceased was the husband of Nidhu Devi (petitioner in BAIL
APPLN. 1683/2021). The deceased and the petitioners were living in the
same house. The petitioners brought the body of the deceased to the
hospital. They have been identified by the Head Constable Mahavir.
7. A perusal of the deposition of PW-1, Sunil Kumar Thakur, who is the
brother of the deceased, shows that the deceased and Nidhu Devi (petitioner
in BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021) got married in 1999 and they have two
children. He stated that about 6-7 months prior to the incident, Nidhu Devi
had gone to her parental house from where she ran away. It is stated that
after 2-3 months, Nidhu Devi returned to her parental house and said that
she was working at some factory in Delhi during her absence from her
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 5 of 8
parental house. He further stated that about 10-15 days prior to the incident,
Nidhu Devi went to his native village and brought the deceased with her on
the pretext of getting him employment in Delhi. He further stated that Nidhu
Devi told them that once they get settled they will also bring their children
to Delhi. He stated that in the evening of 21.07.2016, information was
received that his brother has been murdered. He stated that he came to Delhi
and identified the dead body of his brother in the mortuary of DDU hospital.
8. PW-3, Laxman Singh, is the land lord of the house where the
petitioners and the deceased were staying. In his statement, he stated that his
house is situated in a three floor building and he resides on the ground floor
with his family. He stated that on the first floor of the building there are
three rooms in which tenants reside. He further stated that on the second
floor there are three rooms which are also let out. He stated that on the roof
of second floor there are two rooms having tin roofs. He stated that the
petitioners and the deceased were living in one of the rooms on the third
floor. He stated that on 21.07.2016, at about 4.30 PM, he heard a noise from
the roof and when he went there he saw Nidhu Devi was washing the floor
of the room. He stated that Nidhu Devi was washing the blood lying on the
floor with water. It is stated that when he enquired, he was informed that a
quarrel took place between the petitioners and the deceased. He stated that
the deceased was lying on the floor and he was heavily breathing. He stated
that he immediately called a battery rickshaw which was passing from the
street and sent the petitioners and the deceased to the hospital for treatment
of the deceased. He stated that he later on came to know that the deceased
had passed away.
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 6 of 8
9. The prosecution also examined PW-4, Mohan Shyam, who was the
erstwhile land lord of the petitioner. He also identified the petitioners and
stated that they were staying at his house as tenants. He stated that the
petitioners lived in his house for about 3-4 months and then they vacated the
premises. In the Cross-examination, he stated that Sanjay Kumar Sahu
(petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1684/2021) first approached him for taking the
premises on rent and started residing there and after 3-4 days Nidhu Devi
(petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021) joined him and both of them
started living together.
10. The factors which have to be kept in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
a. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
b. nature and gravity of the accusation;
c. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
d. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
e. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
f. likelihood of the offence being repeated;
g. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
h. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail.
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 7 of 8
11. Even though most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined
but the petitioners are accused of a very serious offence. Though at the stage
of bail, the Court need not conduct a mini trial but the heinousness of the
offence is one of the important and relevant factors while considering as to
whether bail should be granted or not. The material on record reveals that
Nidhu Devi (petitioner in BAIL APPLN.1683/2021), who was already
married to the deceased was living with Sanjay Kumar Sahu (petitioner in
BAIL APPLN.1684/2021) and they were residing at D-147/147, DDA
Colony, Khyala, Delhi and later they moved to House No.N-153, Gali NO.8,
Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Nidhu Devi went back to the native village of
the deceased and brought him with her on the pretext of employment and
then the incident took place on the fateful day. Looking at the gravity of the
offence, the nature of injuries, the manner in which the incident took place
and the fact that the petitioners do not reside in Delhi and the chances of
their absconding are high, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners at this juncture.
12. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed along with the
pending application(s), if any.
13. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same
within a period of eight months.
14. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are not on the
merits of the case.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
OCTOBER 21, 2021
Rahul
BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021 & ANR. Page 8 of 8