Delhi High Court: A bail application was filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in a case relating to alleged abetment of suicide, who consumed poison and later succumbed to it. Vikas Mahajan, J., declared the arrest of the petitioner as invalid for not serving grounds of arrest properly and held that the petitioner be released from custody.
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on 09-05-2023, when information was received regarding an MLC (Medico-Legal Case) wherein the deceased was admitted to the hospital after reportedly consuming a Selphos tablet. He was brought to the hospital by his cousin, an advocate practicing at Karkardooma Courts, who subsequently became the complainant in the case.
Upon receiving this information, the Investigating Officer (IO) visited the hospital, collected the MLC, and ensured that the crime scene was examined and documented. Since the condition was critical, his statement could not be recorded by the authorities. However, the complainant recorded a video statement of the deceased before his passing, in which the deceased implicated three individuals, the petitioner and his office colleagues for harassing and teasing him, which allegedly drove him to suicide.
Following the demise, an FIR was registered against the accused persons, leading to the arrest and charge-sheeting. The investigation against the third accused remained ongoing. The petitioner seeks bail, arguing multiple legal and factual deficiencies in the case against him.
The Court relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right. The Court reiterated that merely mentioning “for the purpose of fair investigation” in the arrest memo does not satisfy the constitutional requirement. The Court also noted that procedural lapses, including the failure to inform the petitioner in writing about the grounds of his arrest, rendered the arrest illegal. Further, the Court observed that five key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s father, had given exculpatory statements, weakening the prosecution’s case against the petitioner.
The Court remarked that “a perusal of the arrest memo shows that though there is column providing for ‘reasons of arrest’ against which it is stated “for the purpose of fair investigation” but neither there is column for ‘grounds of arrest’ in the arrest memo nor it is the case of the prosecution that the ‘grounds of arrest’ were separately served upon the present petitioner at the time of his arrest.”
The Court also found merit in the argument that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and that the petitioner’s continued detention was unjustified, especially when no minimum sentence was prescribed for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Given that the charge sheet had already been filed, the Court saw no necessity for the petitioner’s further incarceration.
Thus, the Court declared the petitioner’s arrest invalid due to non-compliance with constitutional and procedural mandates. Consequently, it directed the immediate release of the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to regularly appear before the Trial Court unless specifically exempted.
[Gagan v. State, BAIL APPLN. 73/2025, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.D. Imran Ahmad, Ms. Yashodhara Singh and Ms. Amrita Jha, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Utkrash, APP with Ms. Punya Rekha, Ms. Vasundhara N, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh and Mr. Vinayak Gautam, Advs. for State with SI Dheer Singh, PS Anand Vihar.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
