BAIL APPLN./4133/2024 of KEWAL KRISHAN Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024KEWAL KRISHAN.....PetitionerKEWAL KRISHAN.....Petitioner

.....Petitioner

Through:Ms. Richa Kapoor and Ms. Sakshi,Advocates.Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI).....Respondent

Through:Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for theState.Mr. Rishab Rajput, Advocate forcomplainant.State.Mr. Rishab Rajput, Advocate forcomplainant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R R%20.12.2024

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 readwith section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023(‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.226/2024dated 27.03.2024 registered under sections 306/34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Narela, Delhi.

2.Notice on this petition was issued on 13.11.2024, pursuant to whichStatus Report dated 12.12.2024 has been filed.Status Report dated 12.12.2024 has been filed.

3.Nominal Roll dated 10.12.2024 has also been received from the JailSuperintendent.Superintendent.

4.Pursuant to what was recorded in order dated 13.11.2024, Ms. RichaKapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed-up acompilation of documents under index dated 20.12.2024, enclosingKapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed-up acompilation of documents under index dated 20.12.2024, enclosing

therewith copy of the communications referred to in that order. Thecompilation of documents is taken on record.

5.Ms. Kapoor submits, that the petitioner seeks bail on the following 04principal grounds:

5.1.On the ground of parity with co-accused Devender, who hasbeen enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 25.10.2024passed by the learned Sessions Court;been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 25.10.2024passed by the learned Sessions Court;

5.2.On the ground that the petitioner was initially granted interimprotection vide order dated 03.04.2024 by the learned SessionsCourt and was co-operating with the investigation; however,subsequently, the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) mischievouslyadded the offences under sections 3(l)(r) and 3(1)(s) of theScheduledCasteandScheduledTribe(PreventionofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), thereby bringing thepetitioner within the ambit of the harsh provisions of section18 of the SC/ST Act, by reason of which the petitioner’santicipatory bail plea was dismissed by the learned SessionsCourt vide order dated 17.05.2024;protection vide order dated 03.04.2024 by the learned SessionsCourt and was co-operating with the investigation; however,subsequently, the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) mischievouslyadded the offences under sections 3(l)(r) and 3(1)(s) of theScheduledCasteandScheduledTribe(PreventionofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), thereby bringing thepetitioner within the ambit of the harsh provisions of section18 of the SC/ST Act, by reason of which the petitioner’santicipatory bail plea was dismissed by the learned SessionsCourt vide order dated 17.05.2024;

5.3.On the ground that the essential ingredients of the offence ofabetment to suicide under 306 IPC are not made-out in thepresent case, especially since the petitioner was not the superiorofficer of the deceased who could have taken any adverseaction against the deceased; and if anything, it was co-accusedDevender who was in position to act against the deceased;andthe said Devender has already been enlarged on regularbail;abetment to suicide under 306 IPC are not made-out in thepresent case, especially since the petitioner was not the superiorofficer of the deceased who could have taken any adverseaction against the deceased; and if anything, it was co-accusedDevender who was in position to act against the deceased;andthe said Devender has already been enlarged on regularbail;

5.4.On the ground that charge-sheet has already been filed in thecase and cites 33 prosecution witnesses; trial in the matter is yetto commence; but in the meantime the petitioner has alreadysuffered judicial custody for about 1-1/2 months as anundertrial.case and cites 33 prosecution witnesses; trial in the matter is yetto commence; but in the meantime the petitioner has alreadysuffered judicial custody for about 1-1/2 months as anundertrial.

Expanding on the aforementioned grounds, Ms. Kapoor argues, thatthe case of the prosecution is based solely on the alleged ‘suicide note'left by the deceased, who has said that the petitioner and co-accusedDevender were responsible for jeopardizing his job, thereby forcinghim to take the extreme step of committing suicide.

Ms. Kapoor submits however, that this statement of the deceased iscompletely misconceived and baseless, inasmuch as the deceased wasrepeatedly absent from work without leave, for long spells of time. Inthis regard, learned counsel places reliance on extracts of theAttendance Register of the Municipal Corporation, copies of whichhave been appended to the petition, which reflect that the deceasedwas absent without leave from work from 16.11.2023 to 27.03.2024.Counsel further submits, that it is important to note, that by reason ofhis repeated absence, the deceased was issued Show-Cause Noticedated 15.12.2023, asking him to show-cause for his unauthorizedabsence; and for that purpose, absence reports dated 11.12.2023,15.01.2024 and 18.03.2024 were prepared by co-accused Devender.It is further pointed-out, that in response to letter dated 25.07.2024sent by the the I.O. viz. ACP (Narela), the Sanitary Inspector, Narelahas categorically stated that the petitioner was not the Inspector ofNarela Ward on 27.03.2024; and that though both the petitioner as

well as co-accused Devender were posted as Assistant SanitaryInspectors in the Narela Ward, it was only co-accused Devender whoworked in direct contact with the deceased.

Ms. Kapoor further points-out that when the deceased was previouslyabsent from work from 10.06.2022 to 28.11.2022 on grounds of hisillness, his rejoining was approved by co-accused Devender videcommunication dated 02.12.2022.

Most importantly, Ms. Kapoor argues, that in its recent decisions inNipun Aneja and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[1]and JayedeepsinhPravinsinh Chavda and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat[2], the SupremeCourt has held that in cases concerning the offence of abetment tosuicide, the courts ought to “ascertain on the basis of the materials onrecord whether there is anything to indicate that even prima facie theaccused intended the consequences of the act i.e., suicide”; andwhether there exist any actions on part of the accused, proximate tothe time of suicide, which incite the deceased to commit suicide.Learned counsel accordingly submits, that in the present case, sincethe petitioner was not dealing with the deceased in any official orpersonal capacity, the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 306 IPCare not even prima facie made-out.

12.On the other hand, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP appearing forthe State opposes the grant of bail, submitting that the exact role of

1 Order dated 03.10.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.654/2017

2 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 439

the petitioner in the act of suicide would have to be determined in thecourse of trial.

13.Learned APP further argues, that information sought under section 91of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that the petitioneralongwith the co-accused Devender were the supervisors of thedeceased; that in the course of their interaction with the deceased theyused caste slurs to harass the deceased; and that the petitioner and co-accused also demanded bribe from the deceased as well as from otherworkers in relation to their employment.of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that the petitioneralongwith the co-accused Devender were the supervisors of thedeceased; that in the course of their interaction with the deceased theyused caste slurs to harass the deceased; and that the petitioner and co-accused also demanded bribe from the deceased as well as from otherworkers in relation to their employment.

14.The court has also heard Mr. Rishab Rajput, learned counsel whoappears on behalf of the brother (complainant) and the wife of thedeceased.appears on behalf of the brother (complainant) and the wife of thedeceased.

15.Mr. Rajput submits, that he has instructions to state that the brotherand wife of the deceased do not oppose the grant of bail to thepetitioner as such, except that they apprehend that, if released on bail,the petitioner may threaten them.and wife of the deceased do not oppose the grant of bail to thepetitioner as such, except that they apprehend that, if released on bail,the petitioner may threaten them.

16.Upon conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, theconsiderations that weigh with the court at this stage are thefollowing:considerations that weigh with the court at this stage are thefollowing:

16.1. The record shows that the deceased had remained absent fromwork without leave for long spells of time, and in relation tosuch absence, ‘official action’ was initiated against him,including by issuing show-cause notice;work without leave for long spells of time, and in relation tosuch absence, ‘official action’ was initiated against him,including by issuing show-cause notice;

16.2. Furthermore, in response to letter dated 25.07.2024 sent by theI.O., the Sanitary Inspector, Narela has said that the petitionerwas not the Inspector of the Narela Ward and that it was onlyI.O., the Sanitary Inspector, Narela has said that the petitionerwas not the Inspector of the Narela Ward and that it was only

co-accsued Devender who was working in direct contact withthe deceased;

16.3. Also, on an earlier occasion when the deceased had remainedabsent from work, the approval for the deceased rejoining workwas issued by co-accsued Devender vide communication dated02.12.2022, which would show that it was Devender who wassupervising and controlling the work of the deceased; andabsent from work, the approval for the deceased rejoining workwas issued by co-accsued Devender vide communication dated02.12.2022, which would show that it was Devender who wassupervising and controlling the work of the deceased; and

16.4. Most importantly, there is no material, at least at this stage, tosupport the allegation that the petitioner had incited or goadedthe deceased to commit the act of suicide; nor is there anyproximate link between the harassment allegedly caused by thepetitioner and the act of the deceased having committedsuicide. There also appears to be nothing on record to evidencethat the petitioner had the intention to abet the act of suicide bythe deceased.support the allegation that the petitioner had incited or goadedthe deceased to commit the act of suicide; nor is there anyproximate link between the harassment allegedly caused by thepetitioner and the act of the deceased having committedsuicide. There also appears to be nothing on record to evidencethat the petitioner had the intention to abet the act of suicide bythe deceased.

17.In the circumstances, this court is inclined to grant to the petitioner –Kewal Krishan s/o Om Parkash – regular bail pending trial, subjectto the following conditions:Kewal Krishan s/o Om Parkash – regular bail pending trial, subjectto the following conditions:

17.1. The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the likeamount from family member, to the satisfaction of the learnedtrial court;50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the likeamount from family member, to the satisfaction of the learnedtrial court;

17.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the I.O./S.H.O, P.S.: Narela,Delhi cellphone number on which the petitioner may becontacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is keptactive and switched-on at all times;Delhi cellphone number on which the petitioner may becontacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is keptactive and switched-on at all times;

17.3. If the petitioner has passport, he shall surrender the same tothe learned trial court and shall not travel out of the countrywithout prior permission of the learned trial court;the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the countrywithout prior permission of the learned trial court;

17.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer anyinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwiseindulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that wouldprejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; andinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwiseindulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that wouldprejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

17.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.

18.Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing beforethe learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considerednecessary to impose reporting requirement as condition of regularthe learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considerednecessary to impose reporting requirement as condition of regular

bail.

19.Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinionon the merits of the pending matter.on the merits of the pending matter.

20.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendentforthwith.forthwith.

21.The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

22.Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

DECEMBER 20, 2024

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J