Delhi High Court – Orders
Kewal Krishan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 December, 2024
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024
KEWAL KRISHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor and Ms. Sakshi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State.
Mr. Rishab Rajput, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 20.12.2024
By way of the present petition filed under section 483 read
with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
(‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.226/2024
dated 27.03.2024 registered under sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) at P.S.: Narela, Delhi.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 13.11.2024, pursuant to which
Status Report dated 12.12.2024 has been filed.
3. Nominal Roll dated 10.12.2024 has also been received from the Jail
Superintendent.
4. Pursuant to what was recorded in order dated 13.11.2024, Ms. Richa
Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed-up a
compilation of documents under index dated 20.12.2024, enclosing
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 1 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
therewith a copy of the communications referred to in that order. The
compilation of documents is taken on record.
5. Ms. Kapoor submits, that the petitioner seeks bail on the following 04
principal grounds:
5.1. On the ground of parity with co-accused Devender, who has
been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 25.10.2024
passed by the learned Sessions Court;
5.2. On the ground that the petitioner was initially granted interim
protection vide order dated 03.04.2024 by the learned Sessions
Court and was co-operating with the investigation; however,
subsequently, the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) mischievously
added the offences under sections 3(l)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), thereby bringing the
petitioner within the ambit of the harsh provisions of section
18 of the SC/ST Act, by reason of which the petitioner’s
anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the learned Sessions
Court vide order dated 17.05.2024;
5.3. On the ground that the essential ingredients of the offence of
abetment to suicide under 306 IPC are not made-out in the
present case, especially since the petitioner was not the superior
officer of the deceased who could have taken any adverse
action against the deceased; and if anything, it was co-accused
Devender who was in a position to act against the deceased;
and the said Devender has already been enlarged on regular
bail;
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 2 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
5.4. On the ground that charge-sheet has already been filed in the
case and cites 33 prosecution witnesses; trial in the matter is yet
to commence; but in the meantime the petitioner has already
suffered judicial custody for about 1-1/2 months as an
undertrial.
6. Expanding on the aforementioned grounds, Ms. Kapoor argues, that
the case of the prosecution is based solely on the alleged ‘suicide note’
left by the deceased, who has said that the petitioner and co-accused
Devender were responsible for jeopardizing his job, thereby forcing
him to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
7. Ms. Kapoor submits however, that this statement of the deceased is
completely misconceived and baseless, inasmuch as the deceased was
repeatedly absent from work without leave, for long spells of time. In
this regard, learned counsel places reliance on extracts of the
Attendance Register of the Municipal Corporation, copies of which
have been appended to the petition, which reflect that the deceased
was absent without leave from work from 16.11.2023 to 27.03.2024.
8. Counsel further submits, that it is important to note, that by reason of
his repeated absence, the deceased was issued Show-Cause Notice
dated 15.12.2023, asking him to show-cause for his unauthorized
absence; and for that purpose, absence reports dated 11.12.2023,
15.01.2024 and 18.03.2024 were prepared by co-accused Devender.
9. It is further pointed-out, that in response to a letter dated 25.07.2024
sent by the the I.O. viz. ACP (Narela), the Sanitary Inspector, Narela
has categorically stated that the petitioner was not the Inspector of
Narela Ward on 27.03.2024; and that though both the petitioner as
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 3 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
well as co-accused Devender were posted as Assistant Sanitary
Inspectors in the Narela Ward, it was only co-accused Devender who
worked in direct contact with the deceased.
10. Ms. Kapoor further points-out that when the deceased was previously
absent from work from 10.06.2022 to 28.11.2022 on grounds of his
illness, his rejoining was approved by co-accused Devender vide
communication dated 02.12.2022.
11. Most importantly, Ms. Kapoor argues, that in its recent decisions in
Nipun Aneja and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat 2 , the Supreme
Court has held that in cases concerning the offence of abetment to
suicide, the courts ought to “ascertain on the basis of the materials on
record whether there is anything to indicate that even prima facie the
accused intended the consequences of the act i.e., suicide”; and
whether there exist any actions on part of the accused, proximate to
the time of suicide, which incite the deceased to commit suicide.
Learned counsel accordingly submits, that in the present case, since
the petitioner was not dealing with the deceased in any official or
personal capacity, the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 306 IPC
are not even prima facie made-out.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP appearing for
the State opposes the grant of bail, submitting that the exact role of
1
Order dated 03.10.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.654/2017
2
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 439
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 4 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
the petitioner in the act of suicide would have to be determined in the
course of trial.
13. Learned APP further argues, that information sought under section 91
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that the petitioner
alongwith the co-accused Devender were the supervisors of the
deceased; that in the course of their interaction with the deceased they
used caste slurs to harass the deceased; and that the petitioner and co-
accused also demanded bribe from the deceased as well as from other
workers in relation to their employment.
14. The court has also heard Mr. Rishab Rajput, learned counsel who
appears on behalf of the brother (complainant) and the wife of the
deceased.
15. Mr. Rajput submits, that he has instructions to state that the brother
and wife of the deceased do not oppose the grant of bail to the
petitioner as such, except that they apprehend that, if released on bail,
the petitioner may threaten them.
16. Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
considerations that weigh with the court at this stage are the
following:
16.1. The record shows that the deceased had remained absent from
work without leave for long spells of time, and in relation to
such absence, ‘official action’ was initiated against him,
including by issuing a show-cause notice;
16.2. Furthermore, in response to letter dated 25.07.2024 sent by the
I.O., the Sanitary Inspector, Narela has said that the petitioner
was not the Inspector of the Narela Ward and that it was onlyThis is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 5 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
co-accsued Devender who was working in direct contact with
the deceased;
16.3. Also, on an earlier occasion when the deceased had remained
absent from work, the approval for the deceased rejoining work
was issued by co-accsued Devender vide communication dated
02.12.2022, which would show that it was Devender who was
supervising and controlling the work of the deceased; and
16.4. Most importantly, there is no material, at least at this stage, to
support the allegation that the petitioner had incited or goaded
the deceased to commit the act of suicide; nor is there any
proximate link between the harassment allegedly caused by the
petitioner and the act of the deceased having committed
suicide. There also appears to be nothing on record to evidence
that the petitioner had the intention to abet the act of suicide by
the deceased.
17. In the circumstances, this court is inclined to grant to the petitioner –
Kewal Krishan s/o Om Parkash – regular bail pending trial, subject
to the following conditions:
17.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the like
amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court;
17.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the I.O./S.H.O, P.S.: Narela,
Delhi a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be
contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept
active and switched-on at all times;
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 6 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:50
17.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to
the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country
without prior permission of the learned trial court;
17.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.
The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise
indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would
prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and
17.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.
18. Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing before
the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered
necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular
bail.
19. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the pending matter.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
forthwith.
21. The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.
22. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
DECEMBER 20, 2024
ss
This is a digitally signed order.
BAIL APPLN. 4133/2024 Page 7 of 7
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/12/2024 at 01:46:51