Raman Malhotra vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner, invoking Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have approached this Court for grant of bail in case FIR No.56/2022, dated 18.5.2022, registered under Section 306 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

Status Report stands filed. Record has also been made available.

As per prosecution case, on 18.5.2022, one Ajay Chaudhary informed the police that a girl, a tenant in his commercial building located behind Kamal Dhaba in village Chhoti Haled, had committed suicide by hanging. Police Party rushed to the spot, where statement of Viveka Gill wife of Ankush Gill, sister of deceased, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), was recorded, stating therein that her sister (deceased) was married in the year 2009 with Karan Singh resident of Sham Nagar Dharamshala and she was having 13 years old daughter from the said wedlock. After marriage, deceased, for strained relations with her husband, left the house of her husband and came to her maternal home and started earning her livelihood as casual Beautician by providing home service as and when required. In the year 2015, co-accused Swarit Malhotra took her (deceased) to his home and violated her person forcibly and thereafter continued to do so with assurance to marry her and he compelled deceased to take separate rented accommodation, whereupon her sister hired a room in Dari in District Kangra. Since 2020, she stated living in rented accommodation in the building of Ajay Chaudhary and continued to earn as Beautician and when deceased asked co-accused Swarit Malhotra to marry her Swarit Malhotra flatly refused, whereupon deceased lodged a complaint on 16.4.2022 against Swarit Malhotra in Women Police Station, under Section 376 IPC. In that case, Swarit Malhotra was arrested, but was enlarged on bail after about 20 days. After releasing from jail, on 16.5.2022 at about 5.30 p.m., Swarit Malhotra came to her (complainant) residence at Chilgadi and said that he was the first person who managed his bail in a rape case after spending `30-35 lakhs and asked the complainant to advise her sister (deceased) to withdraw the complaint otherwise he would manage murder of her brother and sister. On telling about it to her sister (deceased), she disclosed that she was already receiving such threats from Swarit Malhotra. On 16.5.2022, Swarit Malhotra solemnized marriage with someone else, which was in knowledge of deceased. Complainant alleged that her sister committed suicide due to harassment, threats and defamation for which Swarit Malhotra was liable.

During investigation, 12-page Suicide Note of deceased was found by the Investigating Agency, wherein tale of sorrow of deceased on account of act, conduct and deeds coupled with threats of petitioners, causing unbearable harassment, humiliation and defamation to deceased, had been narrated in detail.

It is stated in the Suicide Note that when deceased contacted the police in Women Cell Dharamshala, for the first time, the SHO of Police Station did not register the complaint of the deceased by saying that deceased and petitioner were living in live-in relationship and, therefore, no case was made out. Thereafter, petitioner came to know about NGO ‘Nai Roshni’, an Organization helping women, and with the help of said NGO she again approached the Police but at that time also conduct of the police was hostile whereupon deceased out of anger and disappointment had left the Police Station alongwith her complaint, however lateron FIR was lodged but with great difficulty.

It has also been stated in the Suicide Note that the day when deceased attended the Court for recording of her statement, petitioner Raman Malhotra @ Rinku had come alongwith Rs.10.00 lakh and contacted President of NGO Anuj Katoch, with whose interference FIR could be lodged, by saying that there was no possibility of marriage of deceased and co-accused Swarit Malhotra and, therefore, deceased should withdraw the case by accepting Rs.8-10 lakh and petitioner Raman Malhotra @ Rinku also visited husband of deceased for agreeing him to depose against the deceased by accepting Rs.1-2 lakh, to propagate that deceased was characterless.

It has been alleged by the deceased that after getting bail in previous case, co-accused Swarit Malhotra was harassing, threatening and humiliating the deceased because of which she was not having any other option but to end her life. After releasing on bail, petitioner made a call to one Lalita Aggarwal, a friend of deceased, to call deceased at Kangra, but without informing the deceased that petitioner would be there and he advised sister of deceased to ask the deceased to withdraw the criminal case with threat that in case of continuation of criminal case he would strip the deceased and would kill her. Further that after release on bail petitioner had been continuously doing propaganda against the deceased and her family driving the deceased to finish her life because otherwise Swarit Malhotra was threatening to kill the entire family and she could not bear damage and harm to her family.

It has been stated in the Status Report that on 17.4.2022, FIR No.9 of 2022 was registered against Swarit Malhotra, stating therein that Swarit Malhotra, under false promise of marriage, continued physical relation with her (deceased) since April 2015 to 8.2.2022, despite refusal of the complainant to do so but compelling her for that by giving false assurance to marry. In the said case, Swarit Malhotra was arrested on 17.4.2022 and was enlarged on bail on 7.5.2022 and after enlargement on bail, as stated in the Suicide Note, he continued to pressurize the deceased to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, a petition for cancellation of bail of Swarit Malhotra in case FIR No.9 of 2022 was also filed by Women Police Station Dharamshala. It has also been stated that in the year 2017, another case FIR No.1 of 2017 dated 12.3.2017, under Section 354A read with Section 34 IPC, was also registered against Swarit Malhotra.

As per Status Report, Charanjeet Singh, brother of deceased, has also made statement that co-accused Swarit Malhotra had extended threat by communicating that deceased died without any harm to the petitioner and now he (Swarit Malhotra) will compel him (Charanjeet Singh) to end his life and he is also threatening to ruin the whole family and further that Raman Malhotra (petitioner) has also threatened Charanjeet Singh to teach him a lesson.

After registration of FIR in present case, petitioner absconded and there was grave public unrest in the area, due to which dead body of deceased was not cremated for 3-4 days even after the postmortem and was cremated on 21.5.2022 but after persuasive advice of the police.

Petitioner as well as co-accused Swarit Malhotra had also approached this Court by filing Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1166 and 1172 of 2022 respectively under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail which were dismissed on 3.6.2022. Thereafter, petitioner surrendered before police, and after police custody, he was remanded to judicial custody and since then, petitioner is in judicial custody.

Petitioner had preferred an bail application bearing No. 101-D/XXII/2022 for grant of regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala which was dismissed on 24.6.2022. Thereafter, present petition has been preferred for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that main accused in present case is Swarit Malhotra and petitioner has been implicated being his cousin and it was but natural for the petitioner to accompany Swarit Malhotra at certain places being his relative which does not mean that petitioner was involved in crime alleged to have been committed by Swarit Malhotra and petitioner has not caused instigation or deriving the deceased to commit suicide as petitioner has no link with conduct of Swarit Malhotra with respect to his relationship or alleged exploitation of deceased.

It has been further contended that petitioner is permanent resident of District Kangra and belongs to a respectable family and during his entire career he is not involved in any illegal activity and he is law abiding citizen and further that petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed upon him and he undertakes not to hamper the investigation or trial in any manner and will not tamper with prosecution witnesses acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade such witnesses from disclosing true facts to Court or to Investigating Officer.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that earlier also petitioner was found involved in creating false evidence and alluring and threatening the material witnesses including the brother of deceased and therefore, there is every possibility that after enlargement on bail, petitioner may again involve in repetition of such conduct and therefore, he is not entitled for enlargement on bail.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that though it has been stated in the Status Report that brother of the deceased was threatened by petitioner by sending a message, through friend, however, the said threat has not been substantiated by any material, as brother of the deceased has refused to disclose the name of friend through whom such threat was extended by the petitioner to him and as such allegation has been levelled only in order to disentitle the petitioner from bail. Further that now Investigating Agency has already recorded statements of material witnesses and collected the evidence and therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner to threaten or influence such witnesses and, therefore, prayer for enlarging the petitioner on bail has been reiterated.

Without commenting upon merits of the case, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, period of detention and also taking note of the factors and parameters, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, as propounded in various pronouncements of the Courts including the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that at this stage petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lac with two surety(ies) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(iii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(v) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to

concerned Police Station;

(vi) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected;

(vii) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;

(viii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(ix) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

19 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

20 In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

21 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

22 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the passing of order from the High Court website or otherwise.