Full Judgment Text
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023
POONAM @ POOJA @ PRIYA ..... Applicant
Through: Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr.Anmol
Chopra and Mr.Tukesh Singhal,
Mr.Ujwal Ghai, Mr.Prasanna,
Mr.Ajay Kumar, Mr.Udit Bakshi and
Ms.Deepali Pawar, Advts.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Sahni, APP for the State.
SI Ashok Kumar, PS Civil Lines
% Date of Decision: 04.09.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 23783/2023 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35
1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR no.495/2021
registered under Section 306/34 IPC at PS Civil Lines. Section 174A of
IPC was subsequently added in the charge sheet. The petitioner is in
custody since 06.08.2022.
2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was lodged by Smt. Shanti Devi, mother
of the deceased Manoj. In the complaint, it has been alleged that her
son was married to Smt. Poonam @ Priya on 23.01.2011. Out of the
wed-lock, two children were also born. It has been alleged that her son
came to know that his wife had extramarital relations with a person
namely Neeraj i.e. the applicant, on account of which there was regular
quarrel between the two. It was further alleged that Poonam ran away
with the applicant. Moreover, it is alleged that on 01.09.2021 at around
8 p.m., when the deceased, Manoj, came back home, he appeared to be
under great stress. On being asked, he stated that Poonam had
threatened him to transfer the ownership of the house to her failing
which she will implicate the elder brother and father of the deceased, in
a rape case and will also implicate other members of the family in the
dowry case. The complainant alleged that thereafter the deceased,
Manoj, went into his room and committed suicide by hanging.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in K.V. Prakash Babu
vs. State of Karnataka , (2017) 11 SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has in inter-alia held that if the husband gets involved in an
extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35
under Section 306 of the IPC but definitely that can be a ground for
divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other
enactments. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
co-accused namely Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj with whom the applicant
had allegedly absconded has already been admitted to bail by this court
vide order dated 18.07.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has
also submitted that in fact only on the day of the incident, the present
applicant had lodged a complaint before the SHO, PS Civil Lines
alleging therein that the deceased was alcoholic and physically
assaulted her. It was further stated by the applicant in the said
complaint that on account of the behavior of the deceased, she had been
residing separately.
4. Issue notice. Learned APP has accepted the notice.
5. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submits
that the deceased had also lodged a complaint against co-accused
Neeraj vide DD No.23A dated 29.06.2021 at PS Civil Lines. It has
further been submitted that the complaints filed by the father of the co-
accused Neeraj and the present applicant were after the filing of the
complaint by the deceased Manoj Kumar. Learned APP has also
submitted that the suicide note and complaint have been sent to FSL for
expert opinion and the result has been received. As per the report, the
handwriting of the suicide note is of the deceased Manoj Kumar.
Learned APP has also submitted that the role of the present applicant is
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35
different from the co-accused Neeraj who has been admitted to bail and
therefore the bail may not be granted.
6. This court while dealing with the application of co-accused Neeraj has
inter-alia held as under:
“5. The ingredients for attracting S.306 for which evidence is
required to be led include the intentional instigating a person
into committing suicide. Such instigation refers to abetment
which is a mental process thereby, requires the accused to
possess mens rea. Existence of such intention is detected by the
actual actions of the accused which must constitute a positive
provocation, incitement or encouragement towards committing
suicide. There must proof of such abetment in proximity to the
time of incident. In the present case the marriage is of 2011 and
the unfortunate incident occurred in 2021. At this stage, the court
has to see only the prima facie case. The court considers that
evidence is required to be appreciated for evaluating instigation,
provocation, incitement or encouragement. Reliance may be
placed on S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12
SCC 190 and Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) 3
SCC 315.
6. The law regarding grant or refusal of bail is very well settled.
While deciding a bail, the court has to take into account the
necessary ingredients as under:
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.
7. It is a settled proposition that at the stage of bail the court
cannot meticulously examine the facts of the case, nor can it go
into the probative value of the witnesses. Since the charge sheet
has already been filed, there is remote possibility of threatening
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35
the witnesses or tampering with the record. The trial is yet to
take place. At this stage, it would not be proper to make any
comment about the merits of the case. …..”
7. The role of the present petitioner is different from co-accused Neeraj.
However, the court at this stage is only required to see the prima facie
case. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and
circumstances, and taking into account the prima facie case, the
applicant is admitted to regular bail on furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the
satisfaction of the trial court, and subject to the following conditions:
a) the applicant shall appear before the Ld. Trial court regularly;
b) the applicant shall under no circumstances leave India without
prior permission of the Court concerned;
c) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact or make any
inducement, threat, or, promise to the victim or the victim's family
members or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;
d) the applicant shall provide his mobile number(s) to the
Investigating Officer/SHO and keep it operational at all times; and
e) in case of a change of residential address and/or mobile
number, the applicant shall intimate the same to the Investigating
Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
8. However, it is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of
the case and no expression made herein shall tantamount to be an
expression on the merits of the case.
9. The present bail application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35
10. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary compliance.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 4, 2023
rb
BAIL APPLN. 2956/2023 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:04.09.2023
17:08:35