Sumit Bhuttan vs State of Haryana

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Sumit Bhuttan, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 164 dated 5.7.2011 at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon for an offence punishable under sections 302, 304B,306, 201 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

For facts, it would be sufficient to say at this stage that Sumit Bhuttan, the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, Ruchi Bhuttan with whom he was married on 10.12.2005. She died on 5.7.2011 and there is a dispute as to the fact that she was murdered or she had committed suicide. There are allegations that the petitioner had harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was dealing in shares as a franchisee of M/s Angel Broking Limited, Mumbai. He has submitted that the petitioner had his office at Delhi and the deceased was working in his office as a receptionist on a salary of Rs. 5,000/-per month. According to him, the petitioner was living a life of affluence as there was no dearth of money with him and that he lived such life till huge losses were suffered by him in the business. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on 30.6.2010, the petitioner had gifted a Skoda car to the deceased. According to him, the deceased was also withdrawing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month from her account to help her parents.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Shefali, a sister of the deceased, invested Rs. 3.00 lacs in the shares with the petitioner. According to him, this amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs grew, in course of time, to become Rs. 9.00 lacs. He has further submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry and payment of Rs. 9.00 lacs are incorrect and what is claimed as payment of Rs. 9.00 lacs is the payment of this amount by Shefali because of losses in the share market on account of which, the amount of Rs. 9.00 lacs to which the amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs grew in course of time, was to be repaid to cover up the losses. He has further submitted that conscious of being confronted with this fact, Smt. Sudha Gupta, the complainant appearing as PW-1 at the trial did not make statement regarding the payment of Rs. 9.00 lacs in pursuance of any demand by the petitioner.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that dowry could not be thought of being demanded from a woman, who was an employee of the petitioner as receptionist. According to him, this circumstance itself would show that the allegations of demand of dowry are not true. He has further submitted that Ruchi had been maintaining a diary and the said diary does not have any thing written by Ruchi about any demand of dowry made upon her by the petitioner or any other member of his family. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that Ruchi Bhuttan was being harassed by some unknown caller by making calls on her mobile phone, who was threatening her of being kidnapped. According to him, she complained to SHO, Police Station, DLF Phase 2, Gurgaon and SHO P.S. RK Puram, New Delhi vide Annexure P10 (Colly) on 7.3.2010 and 20.5.2010 that the unidentified caller was sending her vulgar messages too and that she was scared of him. According to him, the police did not investigate this aspect and that Ruchi Bhuttan might have committed suicide on account of the said harassment. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 5.7.2011 and in these circumstances, he deserves the concession of bail.

Learned State counsel has submitted that Shefali had invested the amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs which became Rs. 9.00 lacs in course of time. According to him, the letter received by the police from Angel Broking Limited (Annexure R2) shows that the amount of Rs. 9.00 lacs was paid to cover up the losses suffered in the business of shares by Shefali in respect of her own account.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that there has been demand of dowry made upon the deceased by the petitioner every time, he had suffered losses in his business. According to him, the second loss had been suffered by the petitioner in his business on 27.5.2011 and then he started forcing the deceased to compel her mother to sell her property and to pay him the money so that he could cover his losses. According to him, the demand of dowry continued till the death of Ruchi. He has further submitted that during the night intervening 4th and 5th July, 2011, Ruchi talked to her mother for more than 1 hour and told her about the harassment, she was suffering at the hands of the petitioner. According to him, the complainant, Sudha Gupta appearing as PW-1 has categorically stated in this regard. He has submitted that she was beaten on 4th July, 2011 and she had told her mother in this regard. He has further submitted that she was found to have injuries on her legs which are not possible in case there was no such violence upon her and that she committed suicide by hanging herself. He has further submitted that when the finger print expert visited the spot after the occurrence, he could not trace any chance prints on any object lying in the room. He opined that those objects had been cleaned. He has submitted that this circumstance also shows that an effort was made to interfere with the scene of occurrence to remove the finger prints of the petitioner and others. According to him, otherwise finger prints of atleast the deceased were almost necessary on a glass top table, which must have been used by the deceased in committing suicide if she had done so. The finger print expert is said to have not found even the finger prints of the deceased there. He has further submitted that even the mobile phone of the deceased was formatted to clear it of all the data. He has submitted that the petitioner had been harassing Ruchi Bhuttan even by saying that his first love was Meera Chopra and had he married her, she would have helped him out of the financial crisis. He has vehemently denied the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had gifted a Skoda car to the deceased. According to him, if it had been so, then the petitioner should be able to tell as to where is that car at present.

Though, the fact that the petitioner suffered losses in his business and was to pay the huge shortage margin to M/s Angel Broking Limited, Mumbai, learned counsel for the complainant has put on record some documents to show that as per the e-mail of 27.05.2011, the margin shortage was to the tune of Rs. 56,50,828/-in the account of the petitioner, Sumit Bhuttan. The whereabouts of the Skoda car which is claimed to have been gifted by the petitioner to Ruchi Bhuttan are not known at present. The mere fact that the deceased was working as a receptionist in the office of the petitioner on payment of Rs. 5,000/-as salary per month, would not show that there was no financial status of the parental family of the deceased. In young age, the girls even do jobs at a low salary to pass time and the mere fact that the deceased had been working as a receptionist in the office of the petitioner at a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-would not mean that her parental family was poor and that making of demand of dowry upon them would be out of question.

Annexure P10 shows that Ruchi Bhuttan was being harassed by some unknown caller who was knowing her rich background. She made complaints against that caller to two different police stations. However, this situation was not such which would drive her to take the step of committing suicide. Moreover, the incidents of calls by the unidentified caller, his threats and consequent complaints were a thing of past on the fateful day. The complaints are of 7.3.2010 and 20.5.2010 while the incident of death is of 5.7.2011 and no connection can be held to be there between the said incident and death of Ruchi Bhuttan.

Keeping aside the aspect of payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs or Rs. 9.00 lacs, the circumstances of presence of injuries on the legs of the deceased, absence of finger prints on other articles in the room where the occurrence took place including the glass top table lying in the room and that the phone of the deceased was found formatted would go against the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. There is statement of Sudha Gupta in this regard, who has stated that during the night intervening 4th and 5th July, 2011, the deceased narrated to her the tail of her woes.

So, the circumstances discussed above do not make out a case for grant of bail to the husband of the deceased even though he has been in custody since 5.7.2001. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.