IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, SPECIAL JUDGE PC ACT/ACB (CENTRAL)05, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Bail Application No: 94/17 FIR No. 16/2016 PS Subzi Mandi Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. State U/s 306 IPC
Application u/s 438 Cr,.P.C.
17.01.2017
Present: Sh. Ravi Shankar Garg counsel for accused/applicant Sh. Atul Srivastava, Learned Addl. PP for the State with IO Counsel for complainant is also present
Reply to bail application is filed by the IO.
Submissions on application heard at length. Police file and reply perused. Briefly stated allegations in the FIR against the accused/applicant as per the case of the complainant are that the complainant Harpreet Singh alongwith his father Manmohan Singh (now deceased) and uncle Jasbir Singh were engaged in the business of eggs under the name and style of M/s Prince Egg Mart. Accused/applicant used to supply poultry feed to the poultry farm owned by his father and uncle. Accused Sanjeev Aggarwal had received six undated cheques of Rs.1 lac each as advance from his father and uncle Jasbir Singh. The said cheques were signed by his uncle and the remaining contents were filled by accused Sanjeev Aggarwal. Two of those cheques were encashed by him and regarding the remaining four it was informed by accused Sanjeev Aggarwal that he has misplaced the same. He also demanded payment in lieu of those four cheques which was given by his father , duly
2
Bail Application No: 94/17 FIR No. 16/2016 PS Subzi Mandi Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. State U/s 306 IPC
acknowledged by him on the payment voucher. Accused/applicant also promised deceased Manmohan Singh to return those four cheques as soon as same are found. Subsequently, there were no business dealings between the accused Sanjeev Aggarwal and them. However, accused Sanjeev Aggarwal manipulated the figure of Rs. 1 lac on those four cheques and changed them to Rs.21 lacs each which on presentation got dishonoured. He then filed complaint U/s 138 NI Instrument Act and started threatening his father and his uncle. From 2010 onwards up to 2016, his father was involved in multiple litigations due to which he had to engage many lawyers and he became bankrupt. Accused Sanjeev Aggarwal also threatened his father with dire consequences in case the complaints filed by his father were not withdrawn. Since his father was under immense stress due to the fraud committed by accused Sanjeev Aggarwal, he did not want to live any longer . On 7.10.2016, his father did not return home and he received a call from the police regarding the death of his father on railway line. When he saw the body of his father lying on railway line , he checked his father's pocket and found five photocopies of his suicide note. He found the original of the suicide note on 10.10.2016 from under the mattress of his father which he handed over to the police wherein the reason of his suicide was attributed to the fraud committed by accused Sanjeev Aggarwal. It is argued by learned counsel for the accused/applicant that accused/applicant earlier had business relations with the deceased and his family and that there was a dispute regarding certain payments. To
3
Bail Application No: 94/17 FIR No. 16/2016 PS Subzi Mandi Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. State U/s 306 IPC fulfil the liability, the deceased had handed certain cheques to the accused /applicant for which accused/applicant had already filed complaint cases U/s 138 NI Act against the deceased. One thing led to another and resultantly there were multifarious litigations between the accused/applicant on the one side and deceased and his family on the other. They had disputed not only the cheques duly given by the deceased but had also alleged that figures in cheques and other documents were manipulated by the accused/applicant to the extend that the deceased and his family had filed many complaints against the applicant regarding the same. It is further contended by the counsel for the accused/applicant that no threat was ever extended by the accused/applicant to the deceased. Rather, he was following due process of law and had filed several cases against the deceased to recover his payment. Hence, there is no question of abetting commission of suicide by the deceased. To counter the arguments of learned counsel for the accused/applicant, learned APP for the State read out the contents of the suicide note allegedly left by the deceased Manmohan Singh. It has been very forcefully argued by learned APP for the State that as per the suicide note, the accused/applicant had made the life of the deceased a living hell and having no resort , he committed suicide. No ground for anticipatory bail is made out since accused/applicant is required for sustained custodial interrogation. I have gone through the contents of the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased Manmohan Singh. There is no doubt that as per the suicide note, the deceased has held the accused/applicant to be
4
Bail Application No: 94/17 FIR No. 16/2016 PS Subzi Mandi Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. State U/s 306 IPC responsible for his financial and mental agony . However, there is no whisper of any threat having extended by the accused/applicant to the deceased Manmohan Singh. Admittedly, both the parties i.e. deceased and the accused/applicant are / were involved in various rounds of litigations, some filed by the accused/applicant and some by the deceased and his family. As regards offence under Section 306 IPC, as per allegation of the complainant, the applicant has abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased Manmohan Singh. So far as abetment is concerned, the word abet is defined under Section 107, IPC The said section reads as under:"A person abets the doing of a thing, who
(1) Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
The bare reading of the suicide note prima facie reveals that accused/applicant neither instigated the deceased nor goaded or urged or provoked or aided or even encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment by the accused/applicant by taking legal recourse would not in my opinion attract the provision of Section 306 IPC. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to grant relief to the applicant/accused Sanjeev Aggarwal U/s 438 Cr.P.C.
5
Bail Application No: 94/17 FIR No. 16/2016 PS Subzi Mandi Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. State U/s 306 IPC
Accordingly, application seeking anticipatory bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accused Sanjeev Aggarwal he be released on bail on furnishing bail bond for Rs. 50,000/ with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of SHO/IO concerned. However, observation made herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Applicant/accused Sanjeev Aggarwal is also directed to join investigation as and when called by the IO/SHO through notice and that he shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. Accused/applicant is also directed not to approach / influence prosecution witnesses in any manner. It is further made clear that in case applicant/accused Sanjeev Aggarwal is found violating direction issued today, prosecution shall be at liberty to move appropriate application against the accused/applicant to get his bail canceled. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Hemani Malhotra) Spl.Judge/PC Act/ACB/C/THC 17.01.2017
