AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Vijay Kumar, S/o Amar Singh, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 425/2026 dated 14th September, 2026, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), at Police Station (“PS”) Kalyanpuri, East, Delhi.
This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) (SC-RC)-01, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, seeking anticipating bail, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17th October, 2026, passed in Bail Matters 1178/2026.
The facts relevant for adjudication of the present application, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows:
The deceased, aged about 40 years, was residing at 17/364, Block-17, Kalyanpuri, Delhi, and was working as a sanitation worker with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).
On 02nd September, 2026, information regarding the suicide of the deceased was received at PS Kalyanpuri. On a preliminary enquiry, it was found that the deceased had allegedly hanged himself from a ceiling fan with the help of a chunni at his residence.
Thereafter, he was taken to the Lal Bahadur Shastri (“LBS”) Hospital, by his wife and other relatives, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. The same was recorded vide Medico-Legal Certificate (“MLC”) No. 15124/2026.
Consequently, the FIR came to be registered on the statement of the wife of the deceased, whereby, inter alia, she alleged that the deceased wanted to buy a house through the petitioner, who is a Municipal Councillor of the area where the deceased resided. The deceased obtained a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) for that purpose through the petitioner. However, the petitioner allegedly retained/appropriated the entire loan amount himself.
In addition, the salary of the deceased had also not been coming since the last many months from the date of the incident. When the deceased spoke to the petitioner about his salary and the loan amount, the petitioner continued to exert pressure on him and threatened to get him transferred.
It was further alleged that the petitioner forcibly kept the original bank passbooks, ATM cards, cheque books, property-related documents and personal identity documents of the deceased.
The wife of the deceased also alleged that on account of continued mental harassment and financial exploitation, the deceased experienced severe tension and depression and remained very troubled until the day of his suicide.
In support of the present application, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
The FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 12 (twelve) days which clearly points towards the deliberate consultation and legal concoction to falsely implicate the petitioner.
The allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and without admitting their correctness, do not make out an offence under Section 108 of the BNS or satisfy the ingredients of ‘abetment’ under Section 45 of the BNS. To constitute the offence of abetment, there must be instigation, engagement in a conspiracy, or intentional aid, accompanied by a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to push the deceased to a position where he or she is left with no option but to commit suicide.
In the present case, the allegations are confined to harassment or pressure in connection with monetary dealings. Such allegations, by themselves, do not amount to instigation to commit suicide, and nothing in the FIR shows any intention on the part of the petitioner to bring about the deceased’s death.
Additionally, neither was any suicide note left by the deceased, nor is there any other material on record to establish a proximate nexus or causal link between the alleged acts of the petitioner and the suicide of the deceased.
Moreover, the co-accused, i.e., Surender Choudhary, who is presently in judicial custody in connection with the FIR No. 425/2026, secured the release of the deceased’s jewellery from Muthoot Finance by clearing the loan on behalf of the deceased, and it is a matter of record that the said gold was subsequently recovered from him.
The petitioner has joined the investigation and has duly surrendered both his mobile phones. Thus, the custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation since the evidence that is left to be examined is documentary and electronic in nature.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State vehemently opposes the present bail application on the following grounds:
A perusal of the Call Detail Records (“CDRs”) of the deceased shows that the petitioner made 17 (seventeen) calls to the deceased on the day of the incident.
Further, on verification from the CM Jan Sunwai Portal, Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”), it was found that a complaint had been lodged against the petitioner from the mobile phone of the deceased, vide ID No. 90000260004555.
As per the bank statement of the deceased, it has been found that in the months of July and August, 2026, around 66 (sixty-six) ATM withdrawals were made, which is beyond the normal course of routine transactions.
It has also emerged during the investigation that the petitioner was exercising substantial control over the financial affairs of the deceased and was receiving or appropriating the monthly salary of the deceased for a considerable period.
The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against him which need to be investigated at length.
Presently, the investigation is at the initial and crucial stage. There are certain important aspects relating to the alleged ATM withdrawals, bank transactions, gold loan transactions, financial trail, salary payment, recovery of documents, electronic evidence, etc, that are still under investigation.
The investigation till now discloses sufficient grounds for continued investigation into the specific role of the petitioner and the circumstances which allegedly compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has perused the material on record.
It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power that must be exercised with caution, particularly in cases involving serious allegations and where the investigation is still at an early stage.
Further, at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or to decide whether the ingredients of abetment are finally made out.
In the present case, on a prima facie view, the investigation so far indicates that the deceased was allegedly under financial pressure in connection with a loan taken in his name. It further indicates that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner from the mobile phone of the deceased on the CM Jan Sunwai Portal, GNCTD, and that the petitioner made 17 (seventeen) calls to the deceased on the day of the incident. Furthermore, this Court takes note of the submission made on behalf of the complainant that there is electronic evidence containing communications of the deceased concerning the conduct of the petitioner.
The questions as to whether these acts amount to instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 45 of the BNS, and whether there is a proximate link between them and the suicide, are matters to be adjudicated at the stage of trial and not while deciding an application for bail.
The petitioner is a Municipal Councillor, while the deceased was a sanitation worker employed with the MCD. Considering the difference in their position and the allegation that the petitioner threatened to get the deceased transferred, the apprehension of the State that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence cannot be brushed aside at this stage.
Fruitful reference may be drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Versus State of Bihar and Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, wherein, it has been stated that though power to grant anticipatory is an extraordinary power, however, the same has to be used with caution as it may lead to tampering, dissolution or distraction of evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30.We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
The submission that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that only documentary and electronic evidence remains to be examined cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. It must be noted that joining the investigation does not by itself show that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the order dated 21st October, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in X Versus Arun Kumar C.K & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1834/2022, wherein, the following has been held:
“xxx xxx xxx
In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is also pertinent to note that complainant and other persons connected with the deceased reside in the same locality and are acquainted with the petitioner. Thus, there is possibility of influencing the witnesses and destruction/concealment of electronic and documentary evidence. It is further to be noted that the present case is not based solely upon the allegations of the complainant, but there are independent and electronic corroborative material and audio recordings recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased.
In view of the gravity of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The pending application also stands disposed of.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present application and shall not affect the merits of the case at trial.