Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Nikhil Chandra Kaushik vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 March, 2023

Bench: Surya Kant, Aravind Kumar

                                                     1

     ITEM NO.15                              COURT NO.9                 SECTION II­C

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)             No(s).     11081/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11­10­2022
     in MCRC No. 7830/2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
     Bilaspur)

     NIKHIL CHANDRA KAUSHIK                                             Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.                                   Respondent(s)

     (IA No. 178146/2022 ­ EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     Date : 01­03­2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

     For Petitioner(s)
                                       Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv.
                                       Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
                                       Ms. Shweta Mulchandani, Adv.
                                       Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Adv.
                                       Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Adv.
                                       Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR
                                       Md. Javed Malik, Adv.
                                       Mr. Manoj Selvaraj S., Adv.
     For Respondent(s)
                                       Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR
                                       Ms. Nancy Shamim, Adv.
                                       Mrs. Smt. Isha Vatsa, Adv.
                                       Mrs. Nudrat Fatima, Adv.

                                       Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR
                                       Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv.

Signature Not Verified
                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
                                                 O R D E R

Date: 2023.03.01 17:24:34 IST Reason:

1. Application seeking exemption from filing official translation of the Annexures is allowed.

2. The petitioner is an MBBS, M.S. (Surgery) qualified Doctor.

3. He seeks his enlargement on bail in First Information Report No.757/2022 dated 02­07­2022 under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station ­ Durg Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. The petitioner got married to Smt. Shilpa Chandrakar in February, 2020. It was a love marriage as both the parties were statedly known to each other from the school time. The wife was also a highly qualified engineer from IIT, Mumbai and she was working as Assistant Engineer in Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited. The couple was blessed with a son on 27­03­2022. Smt. Shilpa Chandrakar allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself on 14­06­2022. There are allegations that the petitioner has been ill­treating the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and hence Section 304B IPC has been attracted.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 22­07­2022.

6. It is not in dispute that after completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed, charges have been framed and prosecution’s evidence has commenced.

7. The complainant, namely, the father of the deceased, has already been examined.

8. There are about 29 witnesses and thus conclusion of trial will take some time.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned counsel for the complainant and the counter affidavit filed by the State of Chhattisgarh has also been perused.

10. It appears to us that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody as he being a highly qualified Doctor, would better serve the society in general after he comes out from the jail.

11. In view of the above, but without expressing any views on merits, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

12. The petitioner is, therefore, ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

13. What is required to be ensured that the petitioner or his family must not influence or tamper with the evidence which is yet to be produced.

14. In this regard, we grant liberty to the complainant to approach this Court for cancellation of bail in case it is found that the petitioner or his family has made any direct or indirect attempt to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.

15. Though not an issue which arises for our consideration in these proceedings but with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation as of now, we direct that the son, born out of the wedlock, will continue in the temporary custody of his maternal­grandparents. The petitioner shall be obligated to provide an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/­ to the complainant towards upkeep, care and maintenance of the child. The maintenance shall be payable from the month of April, 2023 onwards.

16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case with regard to the final entitlement of the custody of the child or maintenance etc. and the arrangement made is only tentative in nature.

17. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in above terms.

  (VISHAL ANAND)                                                       (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR­cum­PS                                                COURT MASTER (NSH)