BAIL APPLN./2727/2018 of MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 2727/2018

MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. N. Hari Haran, Sr. Advocate withMr. S.P. Sharma, Ms. Punya RekahAngara, Mr. Varun, Mr. Siddharth S.Singh, Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Mr.Sharang Dhulia, Mr. GovindVenugopal, Ms. Pooja Soni and Mr.Karan Sachdeva, Advs.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State.ASI Neerj Rana, PS Begumpur

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAITO R R%29.08.2019

Vide the present application, the petitioner seeks direction directingtheSHO/IOofthepolicestationBegumpurtoreleasetheapplicant/petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.502/2018 registered at P.S. Begumpur U/S 306 IPC.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceasedused to visit the jagran party of the petitioner occasionally with the soundand music persons and on the request of the deceased, he was engaged bythe petitioner for giving corus, handling music and speakers and othermiscellaneous work in jagran or chowki. The deceased was paid for hiswork after the end of the jagran/chowki like other persons who were calledfor the same purpose.

As per the system/ethics/practice of jagran parties, none of the jagranparties have any employee either permanent or temporary and all themembers of the jagran party are engaged as per requirement. The Petitionernever did any wrongful act or any harassment upon the deceased in anymanner at any stage, rather the petitioner used to help the deceased and hisfamily members often on humanitarian grounds.

However, on 14.09.2018 the deceased and his family members brokethe wall of the Plot No. G-12, Rajiv Nagar Extn, Begumpur belonging to thepetitioner to forcibly occupy and illegally trespass upon the said plot. Thepetitioner received call from the neighbor of his plot Bittu, who informedthe petitioner that the deceased along with his family members have illegallytrespassed upon his property by breaking the wall of the said plot.

When the petitioner along with his family members reached his plot,the petitioner saw the broken wall of the plot and found the deceased alongwith his family sitting in the plot. On asking, the deceased demanded₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from the petitioner to vacate the plot. On this, son of the petitioner called the police on 100 no. and one ASISudhir along with some police officials came from P.S. Begumpur and tookthe deceased and his wife to police station and also requested the petitionerto come to Police Station. On reaching Police Station, the deceased and hiswife Rekha admitted their mistake of breaking the wall and entering into theplot of the petitioner and apologized the petitioner for their wrongful andillegal act. ASI Sudhir recorded the statement of apology and same weresigned by deceased and his wife. The copy of the same has been placed onrecord as Annexure P4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that thedeceased wanted to grab upon the property of the petitioner and infurtherance of his motive the deceased trespassed upon the property of thepetitioner. Thus, as per the facts and circumstances as well as the suicidenote mentioned in the FIR does not attract the offence of Section 306 IPCagainst the petitioner, as the petitioner had no intention or mensrea toinstigate the deceased to commit suicide. Even from the bare reading of theFIR, it is clear that the present case is an afterthought as the family membersof the deceased never gave their statement even after 2 days of death ofdeceased on one pretext or the other.

The present case was registered 21.09.2018 while the DD entry wasreceived at Police Station against the unknown persons. The familymembers of the deceased, on asking of the police officials of P.S.Begumpur, did not turn up for their statement. Even the police officials ofP.S. Begumpur kept the DD entry pending for 2 days. Thus, the Petitionerhas been falsely implicated in the present case and he is apprehending hisarrest.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the suicide notehas been recovered from the pocket of the deceased who has committedsuicide. The IO awaited for the statement of the family members of thedeceased to be recorded but no one turned up. However, they approachedthe police station after two days and they recorded the statement of thedaughter of the deceased. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 21.09.2018.

The petitioner is on interim bail pursuant to order dated 20.11.2018.

The fact remains that as per the prosecution story, the suicide notewas found in the pocket of the deceased and name of the petitioner ismentioned therein, despite the FIR is registered of unknown person.

IO of the case is personally present in Court who failed to satisfy thisCourt as to why he awaited for two days when the name of the petitionerwas in the suicide note itself.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court isof the considered view that the present case is fit for anticipatory bail. TheIO concerned, is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner/applicant be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the satisfaction ofArresting Officer/SHO concerned;

(ii) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and makehimself available for interrogation by police officer, as and when required;

In case of default of aforementioned conditions, the State is at libertyto take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Order dasti.

AUGUST 29, 2019/ms

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J