IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased, the possibility of a consensual romantic relationship, and the impact of these factors on the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 106/2016 under Section 302 IPC, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar.

2. Vide order dated 01.06.2023, notice was issued in the bail application and the State was directed to file a Status Report. The State has filed Status Reports dated 14.08.2023 and 16.09.2023, which are on record.

3. The case of the prosecution as borne from the status reports is that on 10.05.216, information was received from the PCR to the effect that one Sunny (petitioner herein) had informed that he is going to commit suicide and a lady who was also with him had shot herself. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 26-A and was entrusted to SI Sandeep for investigation.

4. On reaching Hindu College, one Ford Eco Sport car bearing registration no. DL 86 AK 8361 was found. On the driver seat, one person was found sitting while on co-driver/passenger seat, a lady was lying who was found to be dead. On enquiry, the person sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name as Naveen Uppal @ Sunny (petitioner herein) and he informed the name of the lady as Anjali Devi. The body of Anjali Devi was sent to hospital, where she was declared as brought dead.

5. During enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship for the last several years. The deceased was married and had children, whereas, the petitioner herein was married to another lady. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner told the deceased to leave him and when the deceased refused, the petitioner shot the deceased.

6. With the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered on 11.05.2016 and the petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2016 itself.

7. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2016. He further submits that the petitioner was granted the benefit of interim bail as per the recommendations of the High Powered Committee and has surrendered in jail on 07.04.2023. It was urged by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has been enlarged on interim bail on six different occasions vide orders dated 17.04.217, 04.06.218, 27.07.2018, 04.02.2019, 13.08.219 and 22.06.2020 and the said concession was not misused by the petitioner. He further submits that the prosecution has sought to examine 64 witnesses and the petitioner may not be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial, which is not likely to be concluded anytime soon.

8. On the merits of the case, Mr. Mathur submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner and the deceased were in a relationship since many years. In January, 2016 the petitioner was engaged to another lady, against his wishes and under the pressure of his family his marriage was performed on 24.04.2016 i.e. 15 days prior to the incident. He submits that both the petitioner and the deceased were extremely disturbed by the aforesaid events and had jointly planned to end their life together by committing suicide. According to Mr. Mathur, the factum of relationship between the petitioner and the deceased is well established from the material on record. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance on the testimony of the son of the deceased, who has been examined as PW-23.

9. He submits that pursuant to the suicide pact, the deceased had shot herself and when the petitioner tried to shoot himself, the bullet got stuck in the chamber of the pistol. This according to Mr. Mathur, is clearly borne out from the testimony of PW-7, ASI Tej Singh, who produced the PCR call book before the Ld. Trial Court wherein it has been clearly recorded that the petitioner and the deceased had agreed to commit suicide. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the seizure memo prepared by the IO to contend that the seizure memo clearly mentions that the magazine of