9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al submits that the complete call details record could not be annexed with the reply to the bail application and the remaining pages, he is placing on record today with copy to learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned Addl. Solicotor General has submitted that in a recent development, Chanshivroop Singh, who is a co-accused in this case and was released on bail by the Court, had moved an application under Section 306 CrPC to become Approver to which the investigating agency had given 'No Objection'. His Statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on 07.11.2012 and to remove a technical infirmity in the previous statement, his statement was again recorded on 27.11.2012. The application under Section 306 CrPC was to come up for hearing on 30.11.2012 on which date Chanshivroop Singh was to appear in person in the Court. He did not appear in the Court on 30.11.2012 and when the matter was adjourned for 01.12.2012, his father informed that his son had left for Mumbai on the night of 27.11.2012 and thereafter he had neither contacted nor returned. On inquiry from his Mumbai contacts, it was revealed that he had left for Abu Dhabi on 28.11.2012 by early morning flight. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven if taken on their face value, do not constitute the basic ingredients of abetment to commit suicide; (vi) The deceased Geetika Sharma was her senior and she had called the deceased in connection with official work; (vii) The allegations made in the two suicide notes are not in conformity with the contents of the FIR; (viii) The incident had taken place at the house of the deceased where she was residing alongwith her family and the petitioner was not even present at the spot so could not have instigated her to commit suicide; (ix) The two suicide notes written on different dates show suspicious circumstances and even if taken to be dying declaration, do not attract Section 306 IPC or conspiracy for abetment; (x) The act of suicide by the deceased is of her own volition and her own independent act without there being any abetment or inducement by the petitioner and the suicide notes do not lead to proximity of any act, omission or commission of the petitioner to abet or instigate the deceased to take the extreme step; and (xi) There is no possibility of the tampering with the evidence by the petitioner. 9. At the outset, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was on 26.07.2012 whereas suicide was committed on the night intervening 04/05.08.2012. Even as per the statement made by mother of the deceased, at the most it can be said that the petitioner was asking the deceased to come to the office to sign certain documents and then resign, which in no circumstance can be termed as abetment or instigation to commit suicide. 12. Distinguishing the present case from the other cases under Section 306 IPC, where a married woman commits suicide on being subjected to cruelty, on the basis of presumption to be drawn under Section 113A of Evidence Act where the Court may presume having regard to all the circumstances of the case that such suicide has been abetted by husband or by such relative of the husband, he submitted that it is not such a case where any such presumption can be drawn to charge the petitioner for abetment to commit suicide. The deceased was pursuing MBA for which the petitioner helped her. Apart from that, she is a lady entitled to the benefit of proviso of Section 437 CrPC especially when she has a young daughter aged about seven years and aged parents suffering from various ailments to look after. It has also been submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt performing her official part of work and helping the deceased as colleague, she had done any other act for which she can be, prima facie, held liable under Section 306/ 120B IPC. 16. In reply to the bail application filed by the State, reference has been made to two suicide notes dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 wherein role of the petitioner has been specified to prima facie establish active involvement of the petitioner in abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased. It has been submitted that deceased was subjected to harassment for a specific purpose by the petitioner and her co-accused which compelled her to end her life, hence the petitioner is equally liable alongwith the co-accused. 17. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has urged that proviso of Section 437 CrPC does not create an absolute right for bail being granted to a woman in non-bailable cases dehors the seriousness of the offence. 18. On behalf of State, it has been further urged that the petitioner played an active role and ensured that the deceased return from Dubai to join MDLR Group of Companies and remain under the control of co-accused Gopal Goyal. The NOC given to the dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement of parents and brother of the deceased recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it has been submitted that the role of the petitioner is duly reflected in the same. The petitioner was not only an employee of MDLR Airlines but constantly participated in the conspiracy with her co-accused Gopal Goyal to cause harassment to the deceased and acted as facilitator in the illegal acts of her co-accused and there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and threatening the witness if enlarged on bail at this stage. Further the job profile of the petitioner was such that earlier also her daughter was being looked after by her parents and she has close relations to take care of her family. 21. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has submitted that statement of Rajiv Kumar Prashar has been recorded wherein he has specifically stated that he was not on the pay roll of MDLR from 07.11.2009 to 14.06.2010 and that NOC on the letter head of MDLR does not bear his signature. 22. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has placed reliance on Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 734 wherein prayer for quashing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence has been committed, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with witnesses etc. It was held that the bail is at the most a matter of procedural privilege and not an accrued right until it is granted. Consequently, it was held that the accused would not be entitled to bail merely being a woman on account of proviso to Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further held that the cause of public justice also has to be zealously guarded compared to the rights of a criminal defendant. Interest of society and also cause of public justice has also to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. Consequently, if offence is of such a nature which affects the vital interest of the society and has adverse effect on the social and family life, in such matters the issue is to be considered with reference to them and one of the consideration which has to be weighed for granting or refusing bail is a nature of the offence and its heinousness. 26. The parameters to be considered for grant of bail in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asizing on the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration, this Court has expressed thus:- While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. In the said case, the Bench has also observed as follows:- Therefore, the general rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court. 18. Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Anr. JT 2012 (9) SC 155, this Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under:- It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking the extreme step even on 04.05.2012 by writing a note to the effect that now this time Aruna is also helping him (Gopal Goyal) to hurt her, harass her, sabotage her family. She used to act as her well wisher but eventually she had shown her true colours and that for the sake of her job, she can stoop down to any level and that her trust in them was costing her life, indicate that it is not a case where the petitioner was only helping the fellow colleague. 28. The first suicide note is dated 04.05.2012. She has visited the Gynaecologist in March, 2012 alongwith the petitioner with the history of early pregnancy and wanted to go for abortion. While giving the history and the duration of pregnancy, the doctor was informed that she had got the pregnancy test done of her own and duration was about 5-6 weeks. On being asked, she disclosed her marital status as unmarried. 29. After being internally examined and advised admission for purpose of medical termination of pregnancy, she expressed her inability to get MTP done as indoor patient and opted for pills which was advised and she was called for review after two weeks. She preferred not to come after two weeks but visited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether a case for abetment to commit suicide is made out against the petitioner. This is the job of Trial Court to hear on the point of charge and prima facie form an opinion whether it is a case of charge or discharge. Whatever allegations are made against the petitioner and her co-accused in the two suicide notes dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 left by deceased Geetika Sharma about the harassment being meted out to her by them. The statement of brother of the deceased is that initially Geetika was harassed by not giving NOC on one pretext or other and subsequently when she joined Emirates after getting the NOC, she was chased even in Dubai and the petitioner has also gone to Dubai to meet Geetika to force her to rejoin MDLR, even mails were sent to Emirates Airlines that Geetika had joined that Airlines after playing fraud and on the basis of fake NOC, thus creating a situation wherein she was compelled to come back and subsequently petitioner joined MDLR. Even the legal advisor of MDLR Company called him (brother of the deceased) to talk to Geetika and on getting the message, she talked to Ankit Ahluwalia from Mumbai Airport and that Geetika was so tense that she missed her flig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
