* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLICATION NO.1557 of 2007 Reserved on: 04.01.2008 % Date of decision: 14.01.2008 MR. HARISH ...PETITIONER Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja, Advocate. Versus THE STATE OF DELHI ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma,Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The petitioner was married to deceased, Ms. Jyoti. The petitioner is charged with offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. 2. Late Ms. Jyoti died in the house of the petitioner and the FIR was registered in pursuance to the statement of the father of the deceased. One child born out of the wedlock is staying with the father of the deceased. In the statement, the father Shri Amar Nath had stated that his daughter was harassed in the matrimonial home by the husband, the in-laws and the sister-in- law and the family members used to allege that his daughter was having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (husband of Bail Application No.1557 of 2007 Page No.1 of 5 the sister of the petitioner). The deceased was also alleged to have been harassed for dowry. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 2.6.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased committed suicide and even a written note was found of the deceased. The co-accused have all been released on bail while the petitioner is languishing in jail since 16.6.2005. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.1.2007 on account of the fact that Section 302 IPC had been added along with other provisions by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 16.12.2006. The investigation is stated to have been completed and thus there was no chance of the petitioner absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to produce a copy of the writings of the deceased to show that it was a case of suicide. Learned counsel further referred to the judgement of the learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kirpal Singh @ Dyal Singh Vs. State of Punjab II (2000) CCR 551 where bail was granted on grounds of parity even in a case where the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referred to the judgement of the learned single Judge of this Court in Mukesh Singh Vs. State 2003 (2) JCC 1102 to contend that the seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and the apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with are aspects to be considered. Thus, larger Bail Application No.1557 of 2007 Page No.2 of 5 interest of public and State and similar other considerations had to weigh for grant of bail. Learned counsel further referred to the judgement of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. 2005 Crl.L.J. 944 (SC) where it was held that an accused charged for non-bailable offences would not be entitled to make successive bail applications on grounds already rejected by the Courts earlier merely on account of being deprived of his liberty. It was, thus, held that the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in the country and thus the findings of a higher court or a co-ordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage. 5. On hearing learned counsels for the parties, it is apparent that the earlier bail application was withdrawn on account of the fact that on that date the petitioner was charged under Section 302 IPC. Thus, the withdrawal of the application cannot be an impediment to the petitioner preferring the present application and thus the principles in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Etc. case (supra) would not apply. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that there are certain peculiar facts to the present case. The postmortem report of the deceased gives the time of death 10 to 12 hours from the time of examination which took place on 15.6.2005 at 2:35 p.m., which would show that the death took place in the night of 14/15.6.2005 at about 2:35 a.m. - 4:35 Bail Application No.1557 of 2007 Page No.3 of 5 a.m. Thus, the statement of the petitioner that he was not at home at the time of death and had left early in the morning should not be acceptable. The postmortem report showed fracture of thyroid cartridge and massive bruising in the adjacent tissue. The mouth of the victim was closed and the photographs showed that the tongue was not protruded. Another important aspect is that there was no scissor or chunni lying in the room when the complainant reached the site. The SDM also noted that there were blue marks on the left hand wrist and the eyes were partly closed. It is in view thereof that the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that if it had been a case of suicide, normal human nature would require that there would have been hue & cry inviting attention including from the neighbours. Nobody had witnessed the victim in the hanging position. 7. On consideration of the matter the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. The aforesaid are material considerations in appreciating the plea of the petitioner that the case was one of suicide. A material aspect was that if the time of death is taken into account, the same occurred in the night when the husband and wife were in the bed room. The petitioner left only in the morning at about 7:00 a.m. The postmortem report shows a ligature mark which is transruse, continuous and completely encircling the neck. 8. The petitioner cannot claim parity with others who, in normal course, would not be in the bed room in the middle of the night when the husband and wife were present. Thus, the role of the Bail Application No.1557 of 2007 Page No.4 of 5 husband is more aggravated in respect of the incident. 9. The aforesaid being the position, I am not inclined to grant any bail at this stage. 10.Dismissed. JANUARY 14, 2008 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. b'nesh Bail Application No.1557 of 2007 Page No.5 of 5