VIKRAM CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.461 dtd. 28/10/2018 at Police Station DLF, Phase-I, Gurugram, District Gurugram, under Ss. 120-B/302/34 IPC.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Hari Krishan, father of the deceased Deepika (daughter of complainant). The complainant alleged that his daughter Deepika was married to Vikram Chauhan in February, 2012 and had been blessed with two children. She was residing with her husband in Flat No.804, 8th floor, Tower 3, Valley View Estate, Gurugram. The complainant's son Himanshu Ahuja is also residing in the same 'Society'. On 27/10/2018, he received a telephonic call from his son asking him to reach their 'Society' as Deepika had fallen from 8th floor and had been taken to hospital by some other members of the 'Society'. The complainant reached hospital at about 3:30 A.M. on 28/10/2018 where he was informed by his son that complainant's daughter Deepika had expired. Upon enquiry, the complainant came to know that there had been a dispute between Deepika and her husband Vikram since the last about 6 months on account of an illicit relationship of Vikram with a lady named Shefali Tiwari, who was also resident of the same 'Society'. It is alleged that the said Shefali, who was married, was residing with her mother and her relationship with Vikram was also known to other members of the 'Society'. The complainant has further alleged therein that he had come to know that at the time of occurrence, Vikram and his elder brother Amit were present at the scene of crime and had been seen by another resident of the 'Society' namely Ms. Leena. It is, thus, alleged that Vikram and Shefali had conspired together to eliminate complainant's daughter Deepika. It is further the case of prosecution that during the course of investigation, when statements of the neighbours i.e. Ms. Leena and her husband Surender were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., they stated that they have witnessed the occurrence when Vikram (petitioner) and his elder brother Amit were allegedly throwing the deceased from the balcony.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where the complainant had never witnessed the alleged incident of throwing down his daughter (deceased) from the balcony of 8th floor where she was residing with her husband in a flat, as the complainant was residing in Chandigarh, whereas the incident had taken place in Gurugram. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the prosecution and as per version unfolded by the complainant i.e. PW-1 Hari Krishan in the witness-box, it was Ms. Leena and her husband, who were residing in the neighbourhood, who had seen the accused throwing down the deceased from the balcony, but when Ms. Leena as well as her husband Surender Bhatt were examined during the proceedings of trial, none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and both of them were declared hostile. Learned counsel, in this context, has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of said two witnesses annexed as Annexures P-11 and P-12 respectively.