Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Pandhi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 October, 2017
Author: V.K.Bist
Bench: V.K.Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
First Bail Application No. 737 of 2017
Order on the Bail Application of accused
CRIMINAL SIDE
Rahul Pandhi,
S/o Late Sri Ashok Pandhi
R/o D-104 Pacific Hills View Apartment,
P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun, District Dehradun
.........Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Opposite Party
______________________________________________________________
Arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C.,
P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun.
Dated: 13.10.2017
Hon'ble V.K.Bist, J.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Mr. Saurabh Pandey and Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocates for the applicant.
2. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the complainant.
4. This is the first bail application moved by the applicant.
25. The applicant- Rahul Pandhi is seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 23 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under Section 306 I.P.C, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun.
6. An F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased on 14.02.2017 at Police Station Rajpur stating therein that his daughter Anchal Pandhi has been murdered by his husband Rahul Pandhi (applicant), her mother-in-law Kiran Pandhi, Sister-in- law Rachna Pandhi and Indrani Pandhi at applicant's resident at Pacific Hill View apartment and information of the said incident was given to him in the morning by the police. He was asked to reach at the place of incident. In the F.I.R. it is also stated that colleagues of his daughter Sumit etc. also informed him that for last many days Anchal (deceased) was suspicious that her husband may kill her. He believes that applicant has killed his daughter. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that when he reached at the spot, he found injuries on the body of the deceased.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Mr. U.K. Uniyal learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are such, which demolishes the case of the prosecution. He submitted that in the F.I.R. complainant has stated that his daughter was killed by the applicant and his family members and the same was informed to him by the police. Meaning thereby, the police had the information that the 3 applicant has killed the daughter of the complainant. He further submitted that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. In the postmortem report the cause of death is shown as ante-mortem hanging. Further, ligature marks are shown around the neck, which clearly shows that this is a case of hanging. He also referred to the statement of Dr. Neeraj Kumar, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, who was member of the panel, which conducted the postmortem. In his statement, Dr. Neeraj Kumar stated that the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. He also stated that ligature marks around the neck of the deceased does not suggest the strangulation. He further submitted that this is a case of partial hanging and in the partial hanging it is not abnormal if feet of the deceased touch the land. He submitted that, admittedly, it is a case of hanging.
9. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. and also other document, there is nothing on which basis it can be said that applicant in any manner abetted the victim to commit suicide. He submitted that, in fact, on the fateful night, the deceased and applicant went out for dinner. They came back around 12:30 p.m. and gone to sleep. Thereafter, at around 02:00 a.m. to 03:00 a.m. when the applicant did not found the deceased sleeping, he went to the adjacent room and saw that deceased was hanging. He then came out in hurry. He left the keys inside and then went his home.
410. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel also appeared for the applicant. He submitted that as per the version of the complainant himself, this is not a case of suicide under Section 306 I.P.C. rather it is a case of murder. He submitted that in this case applicant has been charged under Section 306 I.P.C. and according to the complainant, it is not a case of suicide, therefore, applicant deserves bail so far as Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned. He also submitted that there is nothing on record on which basis it can be said that applicant in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
11. Thus, the main argument of learned Senior Advocates appearing for the applicant is that in absence of clear cut allegation of abetment, the applicant cannot be convicted under Section 306 of I.P.C.
12. The bail application of the applicant has been opposed vehemently by Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant. A question was put to her that what is on record to suggest that applicant was instrumental in abetting the victim to commit suicide. She submitted that Court cannot be and should not be a silent spectator. She submitted that though the applicant is charged under Section 306 I.P.C., but it should be noted that it is a clear cut case of murder and murder was committed by the applicant. She submitted that interrupted ligature mark shown on the neck of the dead body clearly shows that it is not a case of suicide. In this case, the victim would have tried to 5 save herself. She submitted that since the applicant is influential person, the police was influenced by him. The role of the police is not fair in the matter. C.C.T.V. footage has not been taken. She submitted that it is a case of the applicant that he came to know about the death of the deceased at around 02:00 p.m. but he did not go to police station till 06:00 a.m. She submitted that both the feet of the deceased were on the ground in "V" shape. Therefore, it was not a case of suicide. She also referred to the photographs, which shows that the wing on which deceased was hanging was not tilted. She submitted that if a lady is hanging in one wing of the fan, it will certainly be tilted; but, in the present case, wing of the fan was not tilted, which clearly shows that the deceased was forcibly hanged.
13. She further submitted that C.C.T.V. footage clearly shows that the applicant jumped out from the backside of the wall and went away. This act of applicant shows his involvement in the crime. She submitted that it is not at all a fit case, where bail should be granted. She also submitted that in case applicant is granted bail he may influence the trial. She submitted that the knot was opened by the applicant in presence of the police at 08:00 a.m. whereas he could have saved his wife when he found her hanging in the night. This creates a doubt about the applicant.
14. Learned Deputy Advocate General also opposed the bail application. He submitted that it is a case of custodial death; therefore, the applicant being the husband of the deceased is responsible for the 6 death of the deceased. He submitted that the conduct of the applicant should be seen in the matter. He also submitted that the conduct of the applicant was not fair. He submitted that the death was caused at around 02:00 a.m. and father of the deceased was informed in the morning. He submitted that what was the reason for not informing the parents of the deceased till morning. Secondly, police station is 100 meters away from the nearby place and applicant immediately could have gone to police station and could have informed the police about the incident. He further submitted that the applicant jumped from the backside wall and went away. He could have gone through main security gate. Therefore, his conduct shows his involvement.
15. Learned Deputy Advocate submitted that apart from the suspicious conduct of the applicant, the motive is also to be seen in the case. He referred to the statement of girl, namely Ronika and her mother, namely, Renu Dua. He submitted that on perusal of the statements of the girl and her mother, it is clear that the applicant wanted to marry with the girl namely, Ronika and wanted to get read of the deceased. Therefore, offence was committed by the Applicant. He also referred to the diary of the deceased in which she has stated that the applicant did not want to marry her and applicant Rahul Pandhi, Rachna Pandhi, Indrani Pandhi, Kiran Pandhi forced her to die by using her and defaming her. In the diary she also stated that she is committing suicide because of the aforesaid persons.
716. At this stage, Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior counsel for the applicant objected and submitted that the page of the diary which is being referred to is of the year 2011 and has nothing to do with the suicide committed by the deceased in the year 2017.
17. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. By considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.
18. The bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable local sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
20. However, it is made clear that observation made in this order shall not affect the trial in any manner and trial Court will precede in the matter independently. It is also observed that in case bail granted to the applicant is misused in any manner, it would be open for the complainant to move application for bail cancellation.
21. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 13.10.2017 Navin