Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Ritu Batra & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State & Anr. – Respondents
CRL.M.C. 177 of 2016
Decided On : 23-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parinav Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering vital incriminating materials and relevant facts while granting bail, especially in cases involving serious allegations. The judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before making decisions on bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 302/201/364/457/380/411/404/34 IPC - The court discussed the legality and correctness of granting bail to the respondent under Section 439 C.P.C. The judgment highlighted the vital incriminating materials against the respondent and the failure of the Trial Court to consider them while granting bail. The court emphasized the serious allegations against the respondent and the relevance of the Call Details Record in establishing the association between the accused persons. The judgment ultimately quashed the bail granted to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was granted bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302/201/364/457/380/411/404/34 IPC. The court examined the circumstances of the case and the respondent's involvement in a gruesome crime. The bail granted to the respondent was subsequently quashed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order granting bail to the respondent was legally infirm and untenable. It emphasized that the Trial Court failed to consider vital incriminating materials and relevant facts while granting bail to the respondent. The court concluded that the bail granted to the respondent should be set aside and cancelled.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and correctness of granting bail to the respondent, the consideration of vital incriminating materials, and the relevance of the Call Details Record in establishing the association between the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to quash the bail granted to the respondent was based on the failure of the Trial Court to consider vital incriminating materials and relevant facts. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent and the relevance of the Call Details Record in establishing the association between the accused persons.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order granting bail to the respondent was set aside and cancelled. The court directed the respondent to surrender before the Trial Court on a specified date.
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners – victim’s daughters to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 27.02.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in FIR No.940/2014 registered under Sections 302/201/364/380/404/411/457/34 IPC at PS Dwarka North whereby respondent No.2 -Atul Kumar (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’) was granted regular bail under Section 439 C.P.C. The petition is contested by respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.
3. Admitted position is that the respondent along with co-accused-Pramod Kumar @ Pintu, Rohit Gupta @ Gulshan and Gaurav Sharma @ Guddu Pandit is facing trial in FIR No.940/2014 registered under Sections 302/201/364/457/380/411/404/34 IPC PS Dwarka. Main charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet have since been filed. The FIR in Delhi was lodged on 31.12.2014.
4. On 13.10.2014, Insp. K.K.Sharma, SHO PS Babri, Distt. Shamli, U.P. along with staff was on official duty for checking suspicious vehicles. At about 10.30 p.m. a Ford Figo car No. DL 1CM 9765 came from Shamli side. When the police officials on duty tried to get it stopped, its driver instead of slowing it tried to speed away; it was stopped by barricading. On checking the vehicle, three individuals namely Pramod Kumar @ Pintu, Rohit Gupta @ Gulshan and Gaurav Sharma @ Guddu Pandit were found present in it. Pramod Kumar @ Pintu was on driver seat and Rohit Gupta @ Gulshan and Gaurav Sharma @ Guddu Pandit were sitting on the rear seat. During inquiries, the police officials came to know that dead body of one Rattan Chander Papneja was lying in the dickey of the said Ford Figo car. On interrogation, the three individuals disclosed that they had committed Rattan Chander Papneja’s murder by strangulation along with their fourth accomplice Atul Kumar (the respondent). They further informed that they were going to dispose off the dead body. Case FIR No.277/2014 under Sections 302/201 IPC came to be registered at PS Babri, U.P. The said vehicle was taken into possession.
5. During investigation, the vehicle was thoroughly searched and a SIM (9818838555) of Airtel was recovered. It was ascertained that the deceased was Subhash Manocha’s brother-in-law (jija) and he was missing since the previous day. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted and various injuries were found on his person. Cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. On 20.10.2014, the investigation was transferred to Insp. K.P. Sharma, SHO PS Gadhi Pukhta. The said three accused persons were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded. Later on, investigation of this FIR was transferred to PS Dwarka North, New Delhi.
6. Respondent’s involvement in the crime emerged on 13.10.2014. Specific role was assigned to them by co-accused Pramod Kumar @ Pintu, Rohit Gupta @ Gulshan and Gaurav Sharma @ Guddu Pandit in their disclosure statements. The respondent evaded his apprehension and remained absconding. Charge-sheet against the other three accused persons was filed on 10.01.2015.
7. Record reveals that the respondent moved bail application CF-117/2015 seeking anticipatory bail on 17.01.2015. After making submissions for some time, the respondent’s counsel expressed respondent’s willingness to surrender. The respondent who was present in the Court was accordingly taken into custody. Order dated 07.01.2015 records the submission of the respondent’s counsel that wagon R car bearing No. DL 3C BJ 3110 belonging to the victim which the police was trying to recover had already been recovered and it was lying in the premises of PS Sardhana, Meerut. The Investigating Officer was asked to verify the information and seize the vehicle. Since the appellant had surrendered, the application was dismissed as ‘infructuous’.
8. Subsequently, bail application CF 185/2015 dated 27.01.2015 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed to seek regu
