BAIL APPLN./1922/2019 of YASHPAL Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELIH AT NEW DELHI

BAILAPPLN. 1922/2019

YASHPALPetitionerThrough Mr. Rajiv Mohan and Mr. NipunArora, Advocates.versusSTATERespondentThroughMr. G.M.Garooqui,APP for the StateSI Liclrhman SlU-I/Crime Branch.Mr.D.K.Sharma Adv. forcomplainant. .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESII SETHI

ORDER%30.09.2019

Vide this application, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bailapplication filed by the petitioner in FIR No. 28/2018, under Section306/34 IPG PS I.P.Estate.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bailon the ground that petitioner is serving as liead Constable in UttarPradesh, tie has no previous record of involvement in any criminalcase. He has been falsely implicated in relation to the suicidecommitted by Sohanvir (since deceased) on 15.11.2018. There wasno intention on the part of the petitioner to make the deceased commitsuicide. It is submitted that intention to humiliate the deceased cannotbe equated with the intention to instigate the deceased. The only

allegation in the suicide note was that deceased was beaten up by thepetitioner and other co-accused persons. There was no instigation onthe part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the ingredients ofSection 107 IPC are not fulfilled. The petitioner is ready to join theinvestigation. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bailin the event of his arrest.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the followingcase laws:-

1) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.,(2010) 8SCO 628;

2) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5see 371;

3) Roop Kishore Madan vs. State 2001 (57) DRJ 201;

4) Ganguly Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1see 750;

5) Bhausaheb vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 221;

6) Padmakar Tukaram Bhavnagare & Anr. vs. State ofMaharashtra & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 720;

7) Manju Garg & Ors. Vs. State, Bail application No.1161/2012 decided on 22.03.2013, passed by Hon'ble HighCourt of Delhi.

Ld. APP for the State has opposed the anticipatory bailand stated that the the areapplication allegations against petitioner serious in nature, lie has allegedly beaten the deceased which has ledto the commission of suicide by him. In the suicide note, deceasedSohanvir has held Chaman Singh and Yashpal Singh responsible forhis suicide and requested action against them.

1 have considered the rival submissions and perused the caselaws relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioner and am of

the view that the above citations are distinguishable on the basis offacts and circumstances stated therein.

Howevei, at the stage of anticipatory bail, the court is notsupposed to analyse and examine the evidence appearing on record indetail and give finding whether the offence alleged is made out ornot. The suicide note clearly names the petitioner. Moreover, the factthat petitioner is absconding also cannot be ignored.

The prosecution version is that on 16.11.2018 at 5.53 a.m., aninformation was received through PGR that "in Delhi SecretariatVVIP Parking, Ct. Sohanvir has fired from the pistol." Later on, itcame out that HC Sohanvir had shot himself from his service pistol.A suicide note was recovered from the spot. During investigation, ithas come on record that on 15.11.2018 Chaman Singh, Tej Pal, OmpalSingh, Yashpal Singh and Deshpal Singh had gone to the residence ofW.Ct. Nishu (wife of deceased). Before going there, they hadassembled at the house of PIC Lokender Singh. They had assembledthere at the request of W.Ct. Nishu who had strained relations with herhusband PIC Sohanvir Singh (since deceased). On reaching there, afight had taken place between the deceased Sohanvir Singh and therelatives of his wife Nishu. Sohanvir Singh was beaten by the abovementioned five persons in the street outside his house in public view.The local police was informed. The parties were taken to PoliceStation. The matter was mediated and the parties were counselled.No parties had given any complaint against each other. Thereafter, atabout 10.00 p.m., the deceased went to attend his duty and at about4.30 a.m. on 16.11.2018 he committed suicide by his service pistol.

One suicide note has been recovered in which it has beencategorically stated that Chaman Singh and Yashpal Singh areresponsible for his suicide and action should be taken against them.

The petitioner has been declared PC by the Ld. CMM, TisHazari Courts on 08.08.2019 and he is absconding. In view of abovefacts appearing on record and keeping in mind the suicide note whichclearly names the present petitioner and further in view of the fact thatpetitioner has not joined the investigation and is absconding and hasbeen declared PO and in view of the nature of allegations, no groundsare made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J

SEPTEMBER 30, 2019AK