RAVNEET GARG Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third petition, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.'), filed by the petitionerRavneet Garg, the Judicial Officer (under suspension) for grant of regular bail, in FIR.No.RC 6(S)/2013-SCU.I dated 07.08.2013, under Sections 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') (final report filed under Sections 120-B, 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959), registered at Police Station CBI, SC.I/ND, New Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner was married to the deceased-Geetanjali, on 03.11.2007. She gave birth to two daughters. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and was residing in Government quarters alongwith Geetanjali 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, dead-body of Geetanjali was found lying on the ground of Police Lines. On 20.07.2013, Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal, the real brother of Geetanjali lodged a FIR.No.501 with the Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and registered case under Section 302, 304-B, 34 IPC. It was then found, after the conduct of postmortem of the dead-body, that Geetanjali had suffered four bullet injuries and the bullets were recovered by the Haryana Police from the place of incident and sent for FSL examination at Madhuban and the report was submitted by the FSL, Madhuban. The FSL report indicated use of two weapons in the crime, one country-made pistol and the other was Revolver. Ballistic report was also received. The revolver was found a licenced one to the petitioner.The informant-Pardeep Aggarwal son of Om Parkash, resident of House No.117, Sector-8, Panchkula, in FIR.stated that they suspected that since the petitioner was posted at Gurgaon as Chief Judicial Magistrate, there was doubt about fair and fearless investigation by the local police and therefore, the matter should be entrusted to some other agency like CBI as Geetanjali was murdered.

(3.) The Investigator ruled out the possibility of suicide as there were four bullet injuries. The first shot was fired on the chest and therefore, the suspicion that other shots were fired on the neck or head was ruled out. The murder was as cruel as it could be since six shots were fired. The petitioner did not give any explanation as to how his licenced revolver was used when the same was in safe custody. It was not his case that revolver was stolen by anybody nor any complaint was lodged by him in the Police Station.