RAVNEET GARG Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of regular bail filed by petitioner-Ravneet Garg, Civil Judge (under suspension), in FIR No. RC 6(S)/2013-SCU.I lodged on 07.08.2013 under Sections 302/34, 304-B, Indian Penal Code, in which challan has been presented under Sec. 120-B read with Sections 304-B, 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and Sec. 30 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The petitioner was married to deceased-Gitanjali on 03.11.2007. She gave birth to two daughters. Petitioner- Ravneet Garg is working in the Subordinate judiciary and was, at the relevant time, posted at Gurgaon. He was residing in the Government quarter along with Gitanjali and two daughters. On 17.07.2013, between 4.15 p.m. to 5.15 p.m., at a distance of about 1 kilometer from Police Lines, Sector 15, Gurgaon, the dead body of Gitanjali was found lying on the ground of Police Lines. According to the petitioner, at that time i.e. the time of the occurrence, he was attending Video Conference along with 18 other judicial officers, conducted by the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. On 20.07.2013, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, real brother of Gitanjali, lodged a report with the Police Station, Civil Lines Gurgaon and FIR No.501 was registered on his information under Sections 302, 304-B, 34, Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the F.I.R. that Gitanjali was murdered as she could not commit suicide. According to the petitioner, he had made a complaint on the intervening night of 17/18.07.2013 and that the same was allegedly reduced into writing. The post mortem was got conducted after recovery of the dead body by the police and it was found that she had suffered four bullet injuries. Out of two injuries, one bullet entered from the front of the neck and exited from the skull and the second bullet entered from the front chest and exited from the back of the deceased. During investigation, the Haryana Police recovered four bullets from the place of incident and sent the same for F.S.L. Examination at Madhuban and a report was submitted by the F.S.L. The report showed that two weapons were used in the crime. One was country made pistol while the other was a revolver. Ballistic report has also been received. From the investigation conducted by the Haryana Police and as per the case of the petitioner, some other person was involved in the commission of the crime and the petitioner believes that it was a case of murder of his wife but the petitioner cannot be implicated by invoking the provisions of Sec. 304-B, Indian Penal Code. On 04.01.2014, the Haryana Police published an advertisement in a newspaper 'The Tribune' that Gitanjali was murdered on 17.07.2013 and a reward of Rs. 5 lacs would be given for giving any clue. The petitioner or his family members never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her family members nor harassed her at any point of time. The Investigating Officer interrogated the petitioner along with his parents and family members. Not only that, the case was handed over to the CBI and interrogation was also made by the CBI, New Delhi on a number of occasions. The interrogation was even video recorded. According to the petitioner, even complainant-Pradeep Kumar and his father-Om Prakash Aggarwal had given an interview on 06.08.2013 that they had given everything in the marriage of their own sweet will and that the deceased had not committed suicide. The petitioner and the deceased lived together for more than 5 years and she had never left her matrimonial home nor made any complaint to the complainant or his family members about the maltreatment or cruelty, which belies the prosecution case for commission of alleged offence under Sec. 304-B, Indian Penal Code. After filing of the challan, the trial court took cognizance but the petition for bail has been rejected by the trial Court. Hence this petition.

(3.) In support of the petition for grant of bail, Shri S.K. Garg, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that immediately after the occurrence had taken place, the Haryana Police had taken up the investigation and completed it and found no role of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. It is only after a few days that the investigation was transferred to the CBI which also interrogated all the concerned persons but did not find any substance about the allegations that the petitioner had committed any offence. The brother and parents of Gitanjali did not make any grievance at any point of time about the demand of dowry, as alleged, nor any complaint was filed during the period of 5 years with any police station or any relative. Even when the dead body was cremated on 18.07.2013, everything was all right and neither the brother of the deceased nor her parents made any grievance or complaint against the petitioner or against any of his family members. It is by way of an after thought that the FIR was lodged by her brother and Sec. 304-B, Indian Penal Code, was added, on 27.07.201 The petitioner had joined investigation not less than 10 times and had fully cooperated. The petitioner was arrested for the first time on 07.09.2016 i.e. almost after 3 years and there is no complaint about any tampering against the petitioner or against his family members with the investigation and, thus, in the absence of any complaint against the petitioner for over three years and the challan having been filed, no useful purpose would be served by his continuous detention in the jail as an undertrial as the trial will take its own time. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner was in the custody of the CBI for 5 days and has been in judicial custody since 109.2016.