Petitioner filed a second bail petition in a dowry death case involving sections 302/304-B IPC. The court rejected new grounds, citing mere delay as insufficient, noting the First Report did not exonerate the accused. The bail petition was dismissed.
Petition for regular bail dismissed. Petitioner remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-34481 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25th , 2013
Sumit Bhuttan
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Herein Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Sumit Bhuttan, the petitioner seeks 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 304-B, 306, 201 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code in which while framing charge, the court has added section 302 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the very outset that this is a second petition for regular bail of the petitioner.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
2
According to him, vide orders dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P13), the first bail application of Sumit Bhuttan, the petitioner was dismissed by this court. According to him, thereafter the petitioner went to Honble Supreme Court of India with petition for special leave to appeal and the same was dismissed vide orders date 11.5.2012 (Annexure P14). According to him, however, Honble Supreme Court of India directed the trial court to expedite the trial and the prosecution was directed, in the meanwhile, to examine six material witnesses/family members of the deceased, Ruchi Bhuttan first expeditiously and then liberty was given to the petitioner to apply for bail before learned trial court at that stage. According to him, Hon`ble Supreme Court of India then issued a direction to learned trial court to consider the bail application strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by this court rejecting his bail application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to some paragraphs in the concluding part of the order dated 5.3.2012 and has tried to comment on the validity of the observations made therein. According to him, it has been noticed by this court in the order, Annexure P13, that the deceased was working as a receptionist in the firm of the petitioner getting ` 5,000/- per month as salary. According to him, a person marrying such a woman, who is working on such a petty salary, would not be expected to make demands of dowry. According to him, he married Ruchi Bhuttan knowing fully well about her financial background. He has further drawn attention of this court to statements of the witnesses recorded at the trial to show that the
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
3
financial condition of Sudha Gupta, mother of Ruchi Bhuttan was not that good from whom dowry could be demanded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then drawn attention of the court to the final report (supplementary) submitted under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. on the basis of analysis of material available in mobile phone, laptop etc. He has drawn attention of this court to page No. 115 (para No.3) to show that nothing in the nature of a conspiracy between Sumit Bhuttan and Mira Chopra towards whom he was alleged to have been leaning to do away with Ruchi Bhuttan, has come out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to the statements of Sudha Gupta and Dr. Deepak Mathur examined at the trial to show that no case for charge of murder is made out in this case. Citing before me the following judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has his roots in the society, has no chance of absconding and has been in custody for the last 19 months and is, therefore, entitled to bail.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
4
decided on 4.5.2011.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is a dangerous person from whose side threats have been issued and the witnesses have been examined in this case under police protection. According to him, the trial is making progress and it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Possibly, there can be no second opinion about the fact that second application for regular bail is maintainable. However, it is necessary that some new grounds should be there for bail. In the name of new grounds, it is only a fact that the custody of the petitioner has become a little older and some witnesses have been examined at the trial. The effort at dissection of the prosecution evidence would be unwarranted at this stage because that may amount to prejudging the matter.
Most of the disputes regarding the demand of dowry arise when the bride side is not in a position to satisfy the demands. If the
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
5
bride side is having money in abundance, the demands can be fulfilled and no problem would arise. So, no useful purpose would be served in saying that Sudha Gupta was not enjoying good financial condition. The aspect of the final report made on the examination of the mobile phone and laptop etc. only exonerates Mira Chopra from the matter of death of Ruchi Bhuttan and it does not exonerate Sumit Bhuttan, the petitioner in any manner.
The decision in Babu Singh's case (supra) is cited for the observations of Lord Russel, C.J. [(1899) 18 Cox CC 717] in the following terms:-
“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”
It is true that bail should not be withheld as a measure of punishment. Bail was not even withheld from the petitioner vide order dated 5.3.2012 as a measure of punishment.
In Anil Mahajan's case (supra), it has been laid down that bail should not be refused on the ground that the petitioner is an accused of a serious economic offence. In this decision, the legal position emerging from the discussion of the various decisions has been noticed and it is laid down that object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the trial. This rule is also not in dispute but on this ground alone, bail cannot be granted in this case. The other decisions similarly have no application to the facts of this case.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34481 of 2012
6
In view of the above, the petitioner does not seem to be entitled
to bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
January 25th , 2013 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a dual discharge case under sections 302/304-B IPC accused of dowry death.
Whether the delay in custody and examination of witnesses constitute sufficient grounds to grant bail despite the gravity of charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UPDistinguished¶49
Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP (1978) 1 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of CustomsDistinguished¶52
Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2000 (2) JCC 302 (Delhi)
Kamal Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶30
Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (2004) 13 SCC 526 · Who else cites this
U. Suvetha Vs. StateReferred¶31
U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 757 · Who else cites this
Santosh Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶32
Santosh Vs. State of Haryana Crl. Misc. No.M-360 of 2012
Sucha Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶33
Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Misc. No.M-4678 of 2011
Hira Lal and Ors. Vs. StateReferred¶37
Hira Lal and Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi. J.T. 2003 (6) 195 · Who else cites this
Smt. Inderjit Kaur Vs. The StateReferred¶38
Smt. Inderjit Kaur Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2005 RLR 63 (N)
Deepak Vs. The StateReferred¶39
Deepak Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) II (2005) DMC 35
Surinder Kaur and another Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶40
Surinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana (2004) 4 SCC 109 · Who else cites this
M.P.Lohia Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶41
M.P.Lohia Vs. State of W.B. And another (2005) 2 SCC 686 · Who else cites this
Neelam Vs. StateReferred¶42
Neelam Vs. State 2008 (2) JCC 915
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumit Bhuttan
State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
