$~4

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 31.07.2019

+

BAIL APPLN. 876/2019 & Crl.M.B.635/2019

MR. KAPIL NAGAR

..... Petitioner

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Ms.Sonia Mathur, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vishal Kumar,

Mr. Sushil Kr.Dubey, Ms.Noor Rampal and

Ms.Divya Nair, Advs.

For the Respondent

:

Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP, Addl. PP for the State

with Insp.Vinay Kumar, P.S.ATO/Khajoori Khas.

Mr.Pradeep Teotia, Adv. for the complainant.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.74/2019 under

Section 306 IPC, Police Station Khajuri Khas.

2.

Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the brother of

the deceased. It is alleged that there was a dispute between the co-

accused and the family of the deceased. FIR alleges that the co-

accused Tushar Bansal, his father Pushpender Bansal and the

petitioner were troubling the family of the deceased including the

deceased. It is alleged that there was a monetary transaction between

the family of the deceased and Pushpender Bansal and they used to

fight with them. It is alleged that the petitioner along with Pushpender

Bansal illegally showed that substantial amount of money was due

from the complainant and his family. Subsequently, a settlement was

arrived at with the intervention of some people. Pursuant to the

settlement, one plot was transferred by the father of the deceased in

the name of the mother of Tushar Bansal. Further, it is alleged that

despite that they were not satisfied and they continued to harass and

trouble the deceased. A complaint was made in August 2018.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that in December 2018, posters

were put up outside the house of the deceased and also in the entire

locality alleging that the father and the brother of the deceased had

absconded with Rs.5 crores of various people and any person who

could disclose their whereabouts would be duly rewarded.

Photographs of the father and the brother of the deceased were put on

the posters.

4.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 28.01.2019, the deceased

was met by Tushar Bansal and his friends and they started taunting

that what they had done was not even close to what they could do in

future to defame him. Subsequently, the deceased committed suicide

on 31.01.2019. As per the prosecution, the deceased had recorded

three videos prior to his death making allegation of harassment and

interalia also stating that he was going to commit suicide.

5.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated. She submits that apart from the

complaint made against the petitioner in August, 2018 with regard to

demand of money, there is no other complaint or video where the

petitioner is named. She submits that the allegations in the FIR have

been made against the petitioner to falsely implicate the petitioner.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that

three videos were recorded by the deceased prior to his death which

clearly indicate that petitioner is involved.

7.

The three videos have been produced in Court. The same have

been perused. In two of the videos, only co-accused Tushar Bansal is

named and in the third video, Tushar along with his father Pushpender

is named. In none of the videos the name of petitioner is mentioned.

8.

Further, the prosecution has also relied on the video which has

captured the pasting of posters in December, 2018 in the locality of

the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that one person with

muffled face is seen putting up the posters and subsequently the co-

accused Tushar is also seen in the video talking to the person putting

up the posters.

9.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the

inciden