Gagandeep vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh and Another Saurav Vs U.T. Chandigarh

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for determination to grant the regular bail or otherwise are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-4839 of 2013 titled Gagandeep Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and another (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-14164 of 2013 titled Saurav Vs. U.T., Chandigarh (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same FIR/case, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts. The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petitions for regular bail filed by the petitioners, as projected by the complainant, Sweety Sharma daughter of Satish Kumar Kalia (for brevity ''the complainant''), is that, she was engaged in modeling profession. She came and started residing at Chandigarh. She met one Trisha @ Radhika and became friends one month prior to her arrival at Chandigarh. On 17.12.2012, her friend Harnam Singh picked her in his Swift car and dropped in Chandigarh Club. Then, she called her another friend Dheeraj and went to Jainti Mata Mandir and he dropped her at Aroma Light point. Thereafter, she telephonically called petitioner Gagandeep near ATM point in Sector 22, Chandigarh. He came along with his other two friends in his Swift Dezire Car. They went to Hotel Hill View, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, where one room was booked for them. Petitioner Gagandeep has asked his friend to bring beer. She smelled some Narcotic substance by rubbing on the stool. It was claimed that the petitioner proposed the complainant for some obscene act but she refused. In the meantime, her another friend Vishal and another common friend Chulbul also came there. Thereafter, another friend Lali (Karam Singh) asked her to come at Hotel Mount View, Sector 10, Chandigarh. Thereafter, again they went to Hotel Hill View along with other friend. The complainant called her friend Trisha but she refused to come. Then petitioner Gagandeep was stated to have telephonically informed Trisha to come but she refused. Then the complainant and her friends roamed in Chandigarh.

The case of the prosecution further proceeds that, subsequently, petitioner Gagandeep was stated to have informed the complainant that Trisha was not well and asked her to come immediately in Hotel Hill View. She went there where Trisha was lying unconscious in a room of the Hotel. Petitioner Gagandeep informed the complainant that Trisha has consumed beer and smelled some narcotic substance and became unconscious. She was taken to private Dr. Mehta in Sector 19, Chandigarh and he advised to take her to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, from there she was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where she breathed her last.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events and her visits to various places of Chandigarh, for enjoyment with her indicated friends, in detail, subsequently in all, the complainant claimed that since the petitioners have asked Trisha to smell some narcotic substance and to take beer, culminating into her death, so, they are responsible for death of Trisha, in this relevant connection.

In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No. 597 dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 304 and 328 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having exercised and remained unsuccessful before the Addl. Sessions Judge, now the petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of regular bail in this Court in the pointed criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr. PC.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, heaving gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that petitioners were charged for culpable homicide by causing the death of Trisha defined u/s 301 IPC, which postulates that "If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person". Sequelly, Section 328 IPC posits that "Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished thereunder."

A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that the intention or knowledge to commit death are the essential ingredients of the indicated offences. The bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that neither there are any allegations in it nor any evidence is available on record, so far collected by the prosecution, to point out that petitioners-accused have intentionally (forcefully) administered some poisonous substance causing the death of Trisha. The manner and sequence of events would suggest that the complainant, deceased, petitioners and their other indicated friends were roaming in Chandigarh. They took beer and smelled some narcotic substance. Prima facie, at this stage, it appears to be a case of over drugging, which caused the death of Trisha. As indicated earlier that there is not an iota of evidence on record that the petitioners have ever forced her or forcibly administered the drugs to the deceased. In that eventuality, whether the indicated offences are made out against the petitioners or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. So much so, the name of petitioner Saurav is not mentioned in the FIR.

Be that as it may, the petitioners were arrested on 18.12.2012, since then, they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any such criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet examined a single witness, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, oozing out from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the cases of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the present petitions for regular bail are hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their filing affidavits that they will not indulge in such illegal activities in future and on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention here that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petitions for regular bail. At the same time, it is made clear that if the petitioners were found to be indulged in such illegal activities in future, their bail, bail bond and surety bonds would automatically be deemed to have been cancelled in this regard.