Satnam Singh vs State of Nct of Delhi & Anr

(1) The second respondent-Maninder Singh is facing trial for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and in the alternative for the offences under Sections 302, 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. The Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the second respondent. However, the High Court by the impugned order relying upon the alleged suicide note, said to have been recovered from the dressing table, granted bail to the second respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-complainant, brother of the deceased-Mandeep Kaur has filed the special leave petition in this Court.

(2) We have heard Mr. Harpreet S. Popli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant. We have also heard Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. Pradhyuman Goyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-State of NCT of Delhi.

(3) The bail was granted to the second respondent way back on 21.02.2019. It is stated that charge-sheet has been filed, trial is in progress and the prosecution witnesses are in the box and they have to be cross-examined. However, it is also pointed out that the other two co-accused, mother and sister of the second respondent are yet to be apprehended. Various orders have been passed by this Court giving direction to respondent No.1-State of NCT of Delhi to apprehend the co-accused, mother and sister of the second respondent-husband. Status Report has been filed by the first respondent-State of NCT of Delhi elaborating the steps taken up so far and stating that they are not in a position to apprehend both the co-accused - mother and sister of the second respondent.

(4) Since the co-accused are absconding and at the same time the second respondent is facing the trial for the said offences, in our view a balance has to be struck by imposing appropriate conditions upon the order of bail granted to the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent is working in a private company. We direct that : (i) if the second respondent has any passport, the same shall be surrendered before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. (ii) Additionally the second respondent is directed to report before the Geeta Colony Police Station once in a week on every Saturday, until further orders from this Court or the trial is over whichever is earlier.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of the High Court in the impugned order placing reliance upon the alleged suicide note would prejudicially affect the interest of the complainant in pursuing the matter in the trial.

(6) Having regard to the submission, it is made clear that the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order qua the alleged suicide note or other findings in the impugned order. The Trial Court shall consider the evidence adduced on their own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of Session Case No.2313/2016 (Arising out of FIR NO.184/2016 dated 03.05.2016 registered at Police Station Geeta Colony) pending consideration before Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(7) In the meanwhile, the first respondent-NCT of Delhi shall continue to make efforts to apprehend the absconding accused.

(8) With the above directions and observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.