Skip to content


Nikhil Bajaj Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantNikhil Bajaj
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
.....his daughter was dead. on the basis of aforesaid allegations, the instant case was instituted. learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the bail applications has referred to annexure-2 of the bail applications and submitted that prior to lodging of this case rachit bajaj, who is brother of nikhil bajaj gave statement, which was recorded by asi ravindra sharma at campus tmh on 28.03.2016 at 10:00 hours alleging therein that on 27.03.2016, he along with his father pramod kumar bajaj, mother usha bajaj and brother nikhil bajaj had gone to -2- bistupur market and about 7:05 p.m. they returned their residence at umesh enclave adityapur and thereafter called him and about 7:30 p.m. when he reached home, he noticed that his bhabhi madhu bajaj, wife of nikhil bajaj was brought down.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4593 of 2016 Nikhil Bajaj ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 1863 of 2016 1. Pramod Bajaj 2. Rachit Bajaj 3. Usha Bajaj ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr, Advocate. Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. T.N. Verma, Advocate. --------- 07/Dated:

10. 11/2016 Both the applications are heard together as they arose from the same F.I.R. i.e. Adityapur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2016 registered under Sections 302 / 34 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by Shyam Sunder Agarwal addressed to Officer-in-charge, Adityapur P.S. alleging that his daughter Madhu Bajaj was married with one Nikhil Bajaj (petitioner in B.A. No. 4593 of 2016) in July, 2010 according to Hindu rites, in which dowry and other things were given. Thereafter, her daughter was blessed with a daughter, whereupon Sasural people of the daughter of the informant started demanding Rs. 5 lakh and tortured the daughter of the informant and on 27.03.2016, at 7:15 p.m. son of the informant received information that his sister is serious and admitted in TMH. Thereafter, informant and his son went there and found that his daughter was dead. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the instant case was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the bail applications has referred to Annexure-2 of the bail applications and submitted that prior to lodging of this case Rachit Bajaj, who is brother of Nikhil Bajaj gave statement, which was recorded by ASI Ravindra Sharma at Campus TMH on 28.03.2016 at 10:00 hours alleging therein that on 27.03.2016, he along with his father Pramod Kumar Bajaj, mother Usha Bajaj and brother Nikhil Bajaj had gone to -2- Bistupur Market and about 7:05 p.m. they returned their residence at Umesh Enclave Adityapur and thereafter called him and about 7:30 p.m. when he reached home, he noticed that his bhabhi Madhu Bajaj, wife of Nikhil Bajaj was brought down from the apartment and at that time, she was alive and thereafter, she was taken to TMH at 8:00 p.m. where she was declared dead. It was further submitted that Madhu Bajaj committed suicide. It was submitted that although the fardbeyan of Rachit Bajaj was earlier on time, the instant case was not instituted on the basis of this fardbeyan, rather the case was instituted on the written report of one Shyam Sunder Agarwal. So, it was submitted that the aforesaid information which is basis of instant case is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred the case of Birsa Ahir Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported in 2004 (3) JLJR572 On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the written report on the basis of which instant case / F.I.R. has been lodged is not hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Learned APP appeared and filed counter affidavit and in para-9 & 10 of the counter affidavit, learned APP has relied on para-4 of the case diary wherein the I.O. has recorded the statement of witness Rajshree and in para-5 recorded the statement of Rekha Singh and they have supported the fact regarding torture and in para-12 of the counter affidavit, learned APP referred to para-25 of the case diary, where post-mortem examination was done by a team of doctors and they found ligature mark and injury on the body of the deceased which is ante-mortem in nature and injury was as a result of hard and blunt force and the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. So, learned APP also opposed the prayer for bail of the -3- petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit in which he has brought on record certain photographs taken by CCTV, which is a footage maintained by the apartment. Further, thereupon the learned APP was directed to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record whether CCTV have seized by the police and provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was complied or not. Pursuant thereto, learned APP has filed a counter affidavit in A.B.A. No. 1863 of 2016 on 10.11.2016, in which in para-10, categorical averment has been made after taking instruction from Superintendent of Police, Seraikella that a certificate issued by Prem Karua, who is one of the resident of Umesh Enclave, has given a certificate that the contents of the hard copies of electronic records are identical to the screen shots of Video records in CD from Video Camera CCTV. This fact was contested by learned counsel for the petitioners that nowhere in the affidavit or certificate it reveals that the person who has issued the certificate is duly authorized by the service provider to issue the certificate. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Nikhil Bajaj, who is the husband of the deceased, is in custody since 30.03.2016 and charge has already been framed under Section 304B of the I.P.C. on 09.09.2016 and trial is in progress. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the deceased has one daughter, aged 04 years, who is presently in the custody of grandfather (dada). Taking all these facts and without entering into the merits of the case, I am inclined to admit the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the deceased, on anticipatory bail. The above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial -4- Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 336 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and on the further condition that p etitioners will deposit their passport, if any, in the trial court. Further, during course of investigation, if petitioners try to influence or intimidate the witnesses, it is open for the informant to file an application through learned APP for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. So far regular bail application of petitioner - Nikhil Bajaj is concerned, as the trial is in progress, I am inclined to admit him on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 336 of 2016 with condition that after release on bail, he will deposit Rs. 2 lakhs in the name of his daughter as Fixed Deposit for a period of five years within three weeks of his release and petitioner shall file certificate before trial court accordingly. He will also deposit his passport, if any, in the court below and he will cooperate in the trial and during trial, if petitioner tries to influence or intimidate the witnesses, it is open for the informant to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner through learned APP. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //