Delhi High Court

Aruna Chadha vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 December, 2012

Author:
Pratibha Rani

Bench:
Pratibha Rani

$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision : 3rd December, 2012

+ BAIL APPLN. 1705/2012

ARUNA CHADHA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.U.U.Lalit, Senior Advocate
instructed by Ms.Meghna Sankhla,
Mr.Motilal Kandoi, Advs.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Addl.
Solicitor General & Mr.Rajesh
Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel
for State with Mr.Pramod Kumar
Dubey, Mr.Yashpreet Singh,
Mr.Shiv Pandey, Mr.Amit
Rathore, Mr.Rohit Gupta,
Advocates.
Mr.S.Saravanan, Addl. DCP
(North-West)/IO.
Mr.Kunwarjeet Singh, Adv. for
complainant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

%

1. This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner Aruna
Chadha praying for her release on bail in case FIR No.178/2012 under
Sections 306/506/201/120-B/466/467/468/469/ 471 read with
Section 34

IPC and under
Section 66-A
of I.T. Act, PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi.

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 1 of 20

2. Notice of the application was given to the State.

3. Reply to the bail application has already been filed by the State.
Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General 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.

4. 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. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has
submitted that a person who volunteered to become Approver in this
case, has left the country and this shows the amount of influence the
accused person can exercise.

5. Today, Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
placed on record the photocopy of birth certificate of daughter of the

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 2 of 20

petitioner and also the treatment record of her parents. He has also
placed on record the statement of Geetika Sharma made before Emirates
Group on 11.08.2010 and the statements under
Section 161
CrPC of
Dr.Vishakha Munjal and Mr.Batush Pal submitting that statements are
part of chargesheet.

6. Arguments on the bail application heard.

7. As per the averments made in the bail application, the first
application filed before this Court on 21.09.2012 was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application before the Trial Court
in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner applied for regular bail before learned ASJ I/C,
Rohini Courts, Delhi but her prayer for release on bail was declined vide
order dated 15.10.2012 observing that though the petitioner is a woman
with aged parents and a female child to look after which go in her favour
but in the facts and circumstances of the case, likelihood of tampering
with the prosecution evidence and also larger social interest viz-a-viz her
right to be enlarged on bail.

9. The prayer for bail has been made before this Court on the
following grounds :-

(i) The petitioner is a woman and in view of the proviso to
Section
CrPC, she is entitled to be released on bail in view of the nature of
offence for which she has been chargesheeted;

(ii) The petitioner has seven years old daughter and aged parents to
look after. Her parents are suffering from various old age related
ailments and other diseases requiring presence of the petitioner to take
care of them financially and otherwise;

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 3 of 20

(iii) The petitioner had joined the investigation as and when required
and she was arrested unexpectedly on 08.08.2012 when she appeared to
join the investigation at 9.00 am in the morning but unexpectedly
arrested at 9.30 pm on that day;

(iv) The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and the two
separate suicide notes impute certain acts done by her within the realms
of her job profile;

(v) The allegations against the petitioner even 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

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 4 of 20

(xi) There is no possibility of the tampering with the evidence by the
petitioner.

10. At the outset, Mr.U.U. Lalit, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a woman who has already
spent 110 days in custody. She has to take care of her seven years old
daughter as single parent as well her ailing parents. Chargesheet has
been filed in this case and in view of the proviso to
Section 437
CrPC,
her prayer for bail may be considered.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
statement made by Geetika Sharma before Emirates Group on
11.08.2010, she has specifically mentioned that Ex-Company Manager
helped her in getting the release order for which she apologised. Thus,
it was the deceased who owned responsibility for this document and
petitioner cannot be blamed for the same.

12. Referring to the statement of Dr. Vishakha Munjal, the
Gynaecologist, Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
from her statement recorded by the IO as well as given by her in her own
handwriting on her letter head, it can be gathered that she was known to
petitioner Aruna Chadha. The role attributed to the petitioner Aruna
Chadha by Dr.Vishakha Munjal is limited to the extent that she
accompanied the deceased who was unmarried but pregnant. The
subsequent visits to the clinic was by the deceased alone and in the given
circumstances, at the most the petitioner can be said to have helped the
deceased by taking her to a Gynaecologist known to her and this
circumstance in any case does not go against her. Referring to the call
details and the statement made by the mother of the deceased at the time

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 5 of 20

of registration of FIR and subsequently under
Section 164
CrPC, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in none of the
statement, the role of the petitioner has been specifically defined which
could have the effect of instigating and abetting her to commit suicide.
Referring to the two suicide notes, one dated 04.05.2012 and another
dated 04.08.2012 and co-relating with the statement of the
Gynaecologist, it was contended that after writing first note on
04.05.2012, the deceased had visited the Gynaecologist on 14.05.2012
and 19.06.2012 of her own. Referring the call details submitted by the
prosecution today, it has been submitted by Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that even as per the call details submitted by
the prosecution, the last contact between the petitioner and the deceased
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.

13. Distinguishing the present case from the other cases under
Section
IPC, where a married woman commits suicide on being subjected to
cruelty, on the basis of presumption to be drawn under
Section 113-A
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

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 6 of 20

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 submitted by
Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior Counsel that once Chanshivroop Singh was
arrested and released on bail, it was for the Court to ensure that he does
not flee. The petitioner cannot be blamed if due to any lapse on the part
of Court or investigating agency, he has managed to flee from the
country. At the most, it can be said that the petitioner asked the deceased
to come to the office to sign some documents and then resign which does
not amount to instigation or abetment. Rather deceased was attending
the Fashion Show of her brother in Mumbai and for whatever reason she
might have committed suicide, the petitioner cannot be blamed for that.

14. While summing up arguments, Mr.U.U.Lalit, learned Senior
Counsel has submitted that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail for
the reason that she had been in custody for 110 days and during this
period, she has also been subjected to custodial interrogation,
chargesheet has already been filed by the prosecution and going by the
allegations in the chargesheet, no case, even prima facie, for commission
of the offence under
Section 306
IPC can be said to have been committed
by the petitioner.

15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Madan
Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another
(2010) 8 SCC 629
wherein quashing was allowed in a case under
Section 306
/
IPC in
the similar circumstances that employee (Driver) committed suicide
holding the superior officer responsible for his extreme step.

In
Madan

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 7 of 20

Mohan Singh
's case, in the suicide note, the appellant was named to be
the person responsible for the suicide by deceased Deepakbhai
Krishanlal Joshi, who was employed as driver. Reference was made to
para 13 of the report wherein the Apex Court observed that it was absurd
to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to
bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact,
there was no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it was one for
which also there was no material on record) and any of the alleged acts
on the part of the appellant and there was no proximity either and the
proceedings were quashed.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that here
in the given facts, at least the petitioner is entitled to bail in the given
facts and circumstances when there is nothing on record to suggest that
except 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
/
120-B
IPC.

17. 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.

18. Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Addl. Solicitor General has urged that
proviso of
Section 437
CrPC does not create an absolute right for bail

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 8 of 20

being granted to a woman in non-bailable cases dehors the seriousness
of the offence.

19. 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 deceased when she left
MDLR Group of Companies to join Emirates Airlines bore the signature
of one Rajiv Kumar Prashar who was not on the pay roll of MDLR
during the period 07.11.2009 to 14.06.2010 and the NOC was forged at
the behest of the petitioner and her co-accused with malafide intention
to disown the NOC and blame the deceased for forgery. This was also
used to pressurise the deceased to return from Dubai. Further
Chanshivroop Singh was sent to Dubai by the petitioner and her co-
accused authorising him to act on behalf of MDLR Airlines in all matters
related to the deceased Geetika Sharma and the petitioner was in constant
touch with Chanshivroop Singh to know the progress to ensure removal
of deceased from Emirates Airlines and join MDLR. Thus,
circumstances were created wherein Geetika Sharma was forced to
resign from her job in Emirates Airlines in Dubai and return to join
MDLR Airlines. Chanshivroop Singh was asked to create false E-mail
ID in the name of Sheikh Bhasir Al Bhoram, Director, Emirates Groups
to send a threatening e-mail to the deceased. Since Chanshivroop Singh
hesitated and refused for the same, the petitioner threatened him and told
him to either do the work or face consequences. The said forged e-mail
dated 01.10.2010 sent to the deceased had an attached file having the
copy of forged order dated 13.09.2010 of Dubai Court purported to be

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 9 of 20

issued from Justice Hassan Abdelaziz Musand. It has been submitted
that these acts amount to commission of forgery of the record of the
Court and forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of an
individual and are punishable and the intention was to pressurize and
threaten Geetika Sharma to force her and to come back into the clutches
of co-accused Gopal Goyal.

20. On behalf of State, it has been further submitted that it was the
petitioner who had taken the deceased to a clinic at Lajpat Nagar for
getting her abortion done. On 03.08.2012, just a day before this
occurrence, the petitioner had a talk with mother of the deceased
instructing her to send Geetika Sharma to sign the documents and resign
and at that time, adverse comments were made regarding the character of
the deceased which mentally disturbed the deceased and her mother.
Referring to the call details record, it has been submitted that earlier the
petitioner had detailed conversation with the deceased.

21. While referring to 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.

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 10 of 20

22. 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.

23. 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 was made in a case under
Section
/
IPC. The deceased
in that case
was an Engineer. As per the
suicide note left by him, he blamed Praveen Pradhan i.e. the petitioner
in
that case
, for humiliating, exploiting, demoralising him and hurting his
self-respect and forcing him to resign. The Apex Court observed that
instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case
and no straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in
a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to
commit suicide. It was further observed that in a particular case, there
may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have
direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be
drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether
circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that
a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide.

24. I have considered the rival contentions. First I deal with the
contention of the petitioner that she should be enlarged on bail for the
reason that she has spent 110 days in custody, being woman her prayer
for bail has to be considered in the light of proviso to
Section 437
CrPC
especially her family circumstances that she has to lookafter her seven

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 11 of 20

years old daughter as single parent as well her aged ailing parents.

25. Merely because, the petitioner is in incarceration for 110 days, is
in itself does not entitle her to be enlarged on bail.
In the case of
Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
2004 CriLJ 1796, it was held that :

'The mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged
on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future either by itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail
when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe.'

26. So far as release of the petitioner on the ground that she is a
woman and is entitled to bail under proviso (1) to
Section 437
CrPC, is
concerned, it is necessary to mention here that this proviso is not
mandatory.
In the case
Chandrawati vs. State of U.P.
1992 CriLJ 3634
it was held that :

'Overriding considerations in granting bail which are common
both in
Section 437(1)
and
439(1)
of Criminal Procedure Code 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

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 12 of 20

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.'

27. The parameters to be considered for grant of bail in non-bailable
offences have been dealt with by the Apex Court recently in
Pratapbhai
Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.
- 2012 (10) SCALE

237. In paras 15 to 19 of the report, it has been observed :

'15. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to certain authorities
which lay down the considerations that should weigh with the
Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. This Court in
State
v. Capt
.
Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0139/1961 : (1962) 3 SCR 622
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118 has held that the nature
and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the
trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with;
the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar
factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the
case are to be considered.
The said principles have been reiterated
in
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.
MANU/SC/0017/2005
: (2005) 2 SCC 13.

16.
In
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Anr
.

MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280, this Court has culled
out the principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing
bail. In that context, the two-Judge Bench has stated that while
granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character,
behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 13 of 20

has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the
bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In State of U.P. through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21, while emphasizing 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 of greater justice requires that law and order should
prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical
formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 14 of 20

adjudication should express not only application of mind but also
exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law
and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it
that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized
society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be
responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which
every well-meaning person desires.

19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished
value in the life of an individual, and no one would like to barter it
for all the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part of court to
scan and scrutinize, though briefly, as regards the prima facie
case, the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality
of the accused to tamper with the evidence apart from other
aspects before the restriction on liberty is lifted on imposition of
certain conditions.'

28. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
statement of the mother of the deceased that on being satisfied about the
family environment at the work place that Geetika - the deceased
resumed duties. Here suffice it to say that the family members of the
deceased could make statement only to the extent what they were seeing
and what happened in their presence. What kind of physical
exploitation, the deceased was subjected to, can be made out from the
postmortem report. The factum of her being pregnant and taken to a
Gynaecologist is appearing in the statement of Dr. Vishakha Munjal. It
is stated by Dr.Vishakha Munjal that when deceasedGeetika was brought
to her by Aruna Chadha, she was informed that the deceased Geetika was
unmarried but pregnant and that it was not possible to get the MTP done
as indoor patient. Thus, medicines were prescribed which could induce
abortion. The contention of the petitioner that she had taken the

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 15 of 20

deceased to the Gynaecologist to help her being her fellow colleague, on
the face of it appears to be innocuous but in the light of her role in the
two suicide notes wherein she has been put at par with her co-accused
Gopal Goyal to be the person responsible for creating the circumstances
wherein the deceased thought of 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 the Gynaecologist on 14.05.2012 with
some complaint of pain in lower abdomen and burning in urine for which
she was treated.

31. This statement of the Gynaecologist indicates the state of mind
through which the deceased was passing at the time when she had gone

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 16 of 20

for abortion induced by pills and was passing through tough phase due to
that. May be that, she left the idea of committing suicide after getting rid
of unwanted pregnancy and was in the process of normalising when she
started getting calls again, sometimes on her phone and sometimes on the
phone of her brother and mother.

32. At this stage, the statement made by the petitioner before Emirates
Airlines on 11.08.2010 cannot be said to be of any benefit to the
petitioner for the reasons that (i) if the NOC was the creation of the
deceased, the petitioner or her co-accused on detecting the forgery could
have lodged FIR against her and complain to Emirates Airlines, (ii)
chasing her in Dubai by making personal visits by the petitioner and her
co-accused making her resign from there, give rise to the inference that
they were well aware of this fake NOC and wanted to use it as a tool to
create a situation where deceased had no option but to resign from
Emirates Airlines, (iii) normally no prudent person would re-employ and
assign a senior position to an ex-employee who had committed forgery to
the extent that NOC from the company was forged. Not only she was re-
employed, even admission in MBA course by the deceased was also
sponsored by MDLR Company.

33. These circumstances suggest that fake NOC was not an issue for
the petitioner or his co-accused or the MDLR Company, rather on the
strength of that NOC, they managed to get the deceased back in the
company.

34. At this stage for purpose of bail application, her visit to Dubai in
connection with joining of Emirates Airlines by deceased and efforts to
bring her back on one pretext or other, do suggest that she was alleged to

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 17 of 20

be instrumental in her leaving Emirates Airlines to rejoin MDLR
Company run by co-accused of the petitioner.

35. The suicide note dated 04.08.2012 allegedly written by Geetika
Sharma before taking the extreme step, blames two people for her death
naming them as Aruna Chadha and Gopal Goyal for ruining her life. At
the stage of dealing with the bail application, this court is not supposed
to give a prima facie finding as to whether 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 flight on 03.08.2012 and
returned to Delhi by morning flight on 04.08.2012. He had talked to
Geetika 3-4 times on that day to enquire as to why she was disturbed and

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 18 of 20

lastly he talked to her on the night intervening 04/05.08.2012 at about
1.15 am and at that time he was informed by Geetika that she has been
under lot of mental tension because of Gopal Goyal and Aruna Chadha
who were harassing her too much and then she said that she would talk
in the morning. It is a matter of record that on that very night Geetika
committed suicide. Thus, lastly she had a talk with her brother wherein
she named the petitioner and her co-accused to be the persons who were
harassing her.

36. In the statement of mother of the deceased recorded under
Section
CrPC, she referred to a call by Aruna Chadha about 15-20 days prior
to the occurrence when deceased had some arguments with the petitioner
who was insisting Geetika to sign some papers and thereafter resign from
service. At this, her daughter got annoyed and asked the petitioner not to
make further call to her. The statement of mother of the petitioner is also
to the effect that in the night of 03.08.2012, she received a call from
Aruna Chadha - the petitioner that Geetika had to sign some papers and
resign after four days. The petitioner also told her that the allegations
made earlier in respect of character of Geetika by Gopal Goyal were true.
Then, mother of the deceased said to the petitioner that she could never
think that the petitioner would stoop so low to save her job.

37. A bare reading of the contents of two suicide notes and the
statement made by brother and mother of the deceased if read as a whole,
at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no role in
commission of suicide by Geetika. It is not necessary in such type of
cases to have direct evidence or presence at the spot immediately before
or at the time of commission of suicide to form an opinion whether the

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 19 of 20

allegations against the petitioner amount to instigation or abetment which
forced Geetika to take the extreme step. The relationship between the
deceased and the co-accused cannot be said to be limited to that of an
employer and employee relationship as can be gathered from the medical
record and the statement of the doctor.

38. Taking into consideration the parameters to be kept in mind while
considering an application at the time of grant of bail, I find that the
nature of allegations against the petitioner are serious as a young life has
been lost on inability to bear the harassment at the hands of petitioner
and her co-accused. The petitioner may be an employee of MDLR but
from the record, it can be gathered that she ensured that the deceased
remain in MDLR Company.

39. Having considered the submissions made and the material on
record, I feel that it is not a case of extending the benefit of bail to the
petitioner. Application is dismissed.

40. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing
with the contentions of the parties shall not prejudice to the case of either
party at any stage of the trial.

PRATIBHA RANI, J
DECEMBER 03, 2012
'st'

Bail Appln.1705/2012 Page 20 of 20