BESTWAYS TRANSPORT INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two bail applications, one under section 438 Cr.P.C. whereby petitioner Lakhan Garg had sought anticipatory bail whereas in the other petitioner Ramesh Garg has preferred regular bail application, both of whom are accused in this case for having been instrumental in the death of deceased Mahabir Prasad.

(2.) The precise allegations as per complainant Ajay Singhal son of the deceased are that there was a business transactions between the firms of the deceased and that of the accused-petitioners for the last almost two decades and the accused side owed money towards the deceased which it is alleged was not being paid. It is further alleged that on 30.3.2015 around 10.30 AM, the deceased left his place telling the complainant that he has been called by petitioner Ramesh Garg for his payment at the business premises of the accused in village Ghumthala. It is subsequent thereto on the same day, a telephonic call was received intimating the deteriorating condition of the deceased and consequent thereto his death on the same day. Mr. Cheema, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mehndiratta has submitted that the initial version spelt out had pointed towards murder allegations which has subsequently metamorphised into one of abetment to suicide and that the report of Chemical analysis of the viscera sufficiently bears out to be on account of consumption of aluminum phosphide and in the absence of any injury to the person is a clear-cut case of suicidal death due to loss at the business. Arguing that even the alleged suicide note is a subsequent fabrication alleged to have been recovered after more than one month and three weeks of the occurrence and even handwriting expert's opinion does not sufficiently brings forth that the writing in the body of this alleged document belonged to the deceased and that the name of Lakhan Garg does not figure in the ruqa/FIR and further submitting that petitioner Ramesh Garg is in custody since 15.4.2015 and as on date even after the submission of the challan there is no worth-while evidence as to the connectivity with the death of the deceased and has cited Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 1 SCC 750 ; Madan Mohan Singh V. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 8 SCC 628 ; S.S.Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010 12 SCC 190 ; Amallendu Pal alias Jhantu V. State of West Bengal, 2010 1 SCC 707 Sanju alias Sanjay Sengar V. State of M.P., 2002 5 SCC 371 ; Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 ; ,Raj Kumar V. State of Punjab,1983 RCR(Cri) 553 ; 2014 (5) Law Herald 3970, Pritam Singh V. State of Punjab; 2014 (4) Law Heard 3372, Veerpal Kaur V. State of Punjab; Gurjant Singh and others V. State of Punjab, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 515 ; 2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 1013 and 2009(4) RCR (Cri) 467.

(3.) The submissions of the petitioners' counsel have been forcefully controverted on behalf of the State by Mr. Deepak Sabharwal assisted by Mr. N.S. Shekhawat representing complainant contending that petitioner Lakhan Garg is evading his arrest since the date of the occurrence and his custodial interrogation was essential and has sought to level insinuations against investigating agency for unduly lingering the case and in its partisan attitude and has sought to put forth their apprehension that if allowed bail, the petitioners would influence the prosecution witnesses. Appreciating the contentions of the two sides, petitioner Ramesh Garg who is in custody has been sufficiently interrogated and the counsel for the State could not bear out any material evidence except a suicide note and death on account of consumption of poisonous substance.