Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Mittal vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2021CRM-M-8912-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8912-2021
Reserved on : 10.03.2021
Pronounced on : 12.03.2021
Sahil Mittal …Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryna.
Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate
for the complainant.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is for
grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Sahil Mittal in FIR No. 197 dated
20.11.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Section 285 IPC and Sections 27, 29, 30
of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jakhal, District
Fatehabad.
Learned senior counsel has submitted that as per allegations in
the FIR, registered at the instance of complainant Ramesh Kumar son of
Nohar Chand, it is stated that petitioner Sahil Mittal had used fire arms and
subsequently posted a video on Facebook, in which he is shown firing with
a fire arm weapon openly on the terrace of his house with deliberate
intention to threaten the complainant and his family members, who are
already facing threat in light of the FIR No. 154 dated 16.10.2020, under
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:48 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -2-
Sections 306, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Jakhal against
Sitaram Mittal (father of the present petitioner) and 13 other accused
persons. It is further stated that Nohar Chand, father of the complainant,
committed suicide on 16.10.2020 and a group of people were harassing and
blackmailing the complainant and those persons include Sitaram Mittal and
Kirti Goyal. Sitaram Mittal and Kirti Goyal are on interim bail, granted by
this Court, wherein it is stated that in case of any lapse on the part of
accused Sitaram Mittal, the police may initiate process for cancellation of
bail. It is further stated in the FIR that petitioner has caused threat to the
complainant and his family members by firing bullets with a fire arm and
uploading the same on a social media/Facebook. A copy of the video
recording was attached with the complaint.
It is further stated in the FIR that fire arm of the accused
persons be taken in custody and action be taken against Sahil Mittal,
Sitaram Mittal and Kirti Goyal under the provisions of Arms Act and
interim bail, granted to Sitaram Mittal and Kirti Goyal, be revoked and
investigation be launched to find out the licence holder of the said gun.
Learned senior counsel, before opening the arguments, has
referred to order dated 12.11.2020, passed by this Court in
CRM-M-34802-2020, wherein Sitaram Mittal, father of petitioner Sahil
Mittal, along with other accused, was granted concession of interim
anticipatory bail. The operative part of the order reads as under:
“[2]. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case bearing
FIR No.154 dated 16.10.2020 registered under Sections
306, 34 IPC at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad.
[3]. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are husband and wife.
Petitioner No.3 is brother of petitioner No.2. Petitioner in
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -3-
CRM-M No.35831 of 2020 is Municipal Councilor from
Ward No.10. Petitioner No.1 in CRM-M No.34802 of 2020
is Municipal Councilor from Ward No.4, whereas
petitioner No.2 therein is not a Municipal Councilor.
Petitioner in CRM-M No.35444 of 2020 is Municipal
Councilor from Ward No.7.
[4]. FIR was registered at the instance of Mukesh
Kumar @ Jaggu son of Nohar Chand (deceased). The
complainant alleged that his wife Seema Rani is
chairperson of Municipal Committee, Jakhal. His father
was taking care of election prospects of his wife. On
16.10.2020, his father got ready in the morning and he
went to market after informing the complainant.
Complainant received a phone call from his younger
brother at about 10:40 AM, who told the complainant that
he had received a phone call from the office of Municipal
Committee that he should reach there immediately. The
complainant immediately reached the office of Municipal
Committee along with his brother Ramesh. Main gate was
closed. Baljit Sharma, House Tax Inspector, Jakhal came
from inside and opened the gate. He informed the
complainant party that the office door is locked from
inside. Complainant party broke up the door and went
inside and saw that his father was hanging from the fan
with parna. Complainant searched the pocket of his father
and found a suicide note. SHO, Police Station, Jakhal was
present at the spot. Complainant entrusted two pages
suicide note to the SHO. Complainant sought legal action
against the persons named in the suicide note who had
taken money for making his wife as chairperson or
chairman and also to allow her to continue as the
chairperson/chairman. The named persons were
blackmailing the father of the complainant by demanding
more and more money. There was a meeting on 16.10.2020
at 11:00 AM in respect of no confidence motion against the
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -4-
wife of the complainant. Father of the complainant
committed suicide by hanging after being fed up with such
blackmailing by the named persons. The suicide note was
taken out from the upper pocket of the shirt of the deceased
in the presence of Mukesh Kumar @ Jaggu. The alleged
suicide note reads as under:-
“Harvinder Lala, Anik Goyal (Kala)- Monika Goyal
Ward No.3 MC, Kirti Ward No.4, MC Sita Mittal,
Govind Ram MC Ward No.6, Suicide Note.
Respected DC Sir, SP Sir, SDM Sir & DSP Sir and
SHO Sir of Jakhal Mandi, I am committing suicide
today on 16.10.2020. All the MC of Municipal
Committee, Jakhal are responsible for my suicide.
They have looted everything from me and have
made me and my family beg for our bread and
butter. My daughter-in-law Seema Rani had become
Chairman of the Municipal Committee and some of
these MCs had blackmailed me and taken money
from me in which Harvinder Singh (Lala) Ward
No.1 had taken Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs),
Govind Ram MC Ward No.6 had taken
Rs.17,00,000/- (Seventeen Lakhs), Swasti Rani of
Ward No.7 had taken Rs.17,00,000/- (Seventeen
Lakhs), Vikram S/o Raju of Ward No.8 had taken
Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty three lakhs), Vikram Saini
of Ward No.9 had taken Rs.23,00,000/- (Twenty
three lakhs), Amit Kumar S/o Sunil Kumar of Ward
No.11 had taken Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lakhs) by
blackmailing me in lieu of giving vote and later also
again and again they took money blackmailing me
and Vikas Kamra of Ward No.10 extorted
Rs.43,00,000/- (Fourty three lakhs) and may Jay
Maa Kali Ji punish them. I Harvinder (Lala) Ward
No.1; 2. Monika Goyal & her husband Anil Kumr &
her bother-in-law Satish (bhola); 4. Kirti & her
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -5-
father-in-law Sitaram Mittal; 6. Govindram Bazigar;
7 Swasti Ward No.7 MC; 8. Vikram S/o Raju Baba
MC 9. Vikram Sain S/o- Mahendra; 10. Vikas
Kamra MC Ward No.10; 11. Amit Kumar S/o Sunil
Kumar; 12. Niti Bansal & her husband Puneet
Bansal Gopa; should not be left. Sir, the persons
responsible for my death-Vikram S/o Raju Ward
No.8 MC; Vikram Saini Ward No.9 MC; Vikas
Kamra Ward No.10 MC; Amit Bindu Ward No.11
MC; Niti Bansal Ward No.12 MC; Gopa (Puneet
Bansal) used to demand money from me. At last,
when my everything got sold, solar plant etc., I was
unable to give money. When they did not received
money, they went to the other party and in
connivance with them leveled false allegation on my
daughter-in-law Seema Rani and are now getting the
voting done today. Sir, they have looted my
everything. The master mind are Chairman candidate
Monika Goyal Ward No.3 MC and her husband Anil
Kumar, Kirti Goyal from Ward No.4 and her father-
in-law. The 9 MC who had given affidavit against
Seema Rani, in that also they had leveled extremely
dirty allegations that Seema Rani by deceived and
defrauded Municipal Committee but Sir, she has
never committed any fraud. They have leveled all
false allegations. Respected Sir, Monika Goyal from
Ward No.3 MC and her husband Anil Kumar, Kirti
Goyal from Ward No.1 and her husband Puneet
Bansal (Gopa) and Vikas Kamra from Ward No.10
have threatened to kill me and my family from many
other people who are also responsible for my death,
the names of which will be disclosed by my
children. Monika Goyal Ward No.3 & her husband
have even threatened us to the extent that if you
don’t quit Chairmanship on 16.10.2020, then we
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -6-
well kidnap the whole family. Respected Sir,
Harvinder (Lala) Ward No.6; Govind Ram Ward
No.8; Vikram S/o Raju; Ward No.9 Vikram Saini;
and Amit Kumar Ward No.11 had even told me
yesterday that if you want to save chairmanship then
give us 20-20 lakhs rupees, but now I don’t have
money anymore. Sir, these accused persons be given
strict punishment. They all are responsible for my
death i.e. all 12 MC. Further my family be provided
protection for life. If these greedy MC will not stop,
then my whole family can commit suicide. Persons
responsible for my suicide 1. Ward No.3 Monika
Goyal & her husband Anil Goyal; 2. Ward No.4
Kirti Goyal & her father-in-law Sitaram Mittal; 3.
Ward No.6 Govindram Bazigar; 4. Ward No.8
Vikram Baba S/o Raju; 5. Ward No.9 Vikram Saini
S/o Mahendra Singh; 6. Ward No.10 Vikas Kamra;
7. Ward No.11 Amit Kumar (Vintu); Ward No.12
Niti Bansal & her husband Puneet and Harvinder
Singh (Lala) from Ward No.1.”
[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners No.2 and 3 have nothing to do with the FIR of
Municipal Committee. There are no allegations of taking
money or blackmailing the deceased or the wife of the
complainant for money or for votes. Petitioners No.2 and 3
have no connection with any vote or no confidence motion
in respect of election of the wife of the complainant as
chairperson of the Municipal Committee. Petitioner No.3 is
claimed to be living separately from petitioners No.1 and 2.
The allegations of conspiracy to get petitioner No.1 elected
as chairperson are not forthcoming by way of any
documentary evidence. They were not involved in earlier
writ petition filed against the election of the wife of the
complainant. No confidence motion had not been put to
vote and there was no vacancy of
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -7-
chairperson/chairman/president. Deceased Nohar Chand
had earlier threatened the son of the Municipal Councilor in
the month of June 2020 to implicate them falsely in some
case. First no confidence motion was moved by the
Municipal Committee led by Vikas Kamra (petitioner in
CRM-M No.34831 of 2020). The complaint was made to
the Deputy Commissioner in respect of aforesaid threats on
10.06.2020.
[6]. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged
suicide note is undated and its authenticity is yet to be
proved. Even if, it is taken to be a suicide note, the same
would not advance any complicity in terms of offence
under Section 306 IPC as the requirement of law is not
satisfied. In order to constitute offence under Section 306
IPC, there has to be a concerted effort on behalf of the
accused to drive/abet the commission of offence till last
resort. The victim has to be brought to such a juncture
where he has no option, but to commit suicide. The alleged
suicide has not been proved as yet. There are no allegations
of demand of money by any of the petitioner(s) by voting
in favour of Seema Rani either at the time of her election as
chairperson or at any subsequent stage. The meeting dated
16.10.2020 was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner and
the meeting was called by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by
following all legal requirements. The allegations of
abetment cannot sustain in the context of holding of such a
meeting. Mere mentioning of the name of the Municipal
Councilors in the suicide note in itself is not sufficient to
charge them for abetment under Section 306 IPC as there is
no overtact of any abetment except to allege blackmailing
by them. There are no allegations of torture or mens rea to
drive the deceased to do suicide. A death by suicide has
connectivity with the desire object of abettor with intention.
Such intention should have instigated the victim to do such
an extent that he had no further option, but to commit
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -8-
suicide. All these things should be gathered by positive act
of abettor. There has to be a close proximity of the abettor
and the deceased and in the absence of any positive action
with reference to time of occurrence on the part of the
accused, which led the victim to commit suicide, there
cannot be any abetment. The act of suicide has to be in
furtherance of the act of abetment. There are no allegations
of any such instigation on the part of the petitioners by
virtue of which it can be presumed that the petitioners have
abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The
live link between the act committed by the petitioners has
to be brought on record which drove the deceased to
commit suicide.
[7]. The deceased himself was facing prosecution in
FIR No.157 dated 01.12.2019 registered under Sections
420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Moonak. He
was facing allegations of cheating for a sum of Rs.41 lacs.
The deceased was also facing huge financial crisis as his
account had already been declared as Nonperforming
Asset. During the voting of first no confidence motion, a
complaint was filed against him and his family members
for giving threats.
[8]. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CRM-M
No.34802 of 2020 submitted that petitioner No.1 therein
had filed CWP No.8197 of 2019 and petitioner No.2
therein is not even a Municipal Councilor. There are no
allegations of taking money or blackmailing against the
petitioners. Petitioner No.2 has nothing to do with the
election of the wife of the complainant as
president/chairperson, nor has any connection with no
confidence motion. In fact, election of Municipal
Committee, Jakhal was held on 16.12.2018. 13 members
were elected as Municipal Councilors. Wife of the
complainant was elected as
chairperson/president/Municipal Councilor on 02.02.2019.
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -9-
Petitioner No.1 Kriti Goyal was not present as she was
opposing the wife of the complainant. After election,
petitioner No.1 along with four other Municipal Councilors
filed CWP No.8197 of 2019 for setting aside the election of
the wife of the complainant and vice president of Municipal
Committee. The writ petition was dismissed in September
2020.
[9]. On 04.06.2020, 9 Municipal Councilors including
petitioner No.1 Kirti Goyal approached the Deputy
Commissioner, Fatehabad for convening a special meeting
of no confidence motion against the wife of the
complainant. The said meeting was ordered to be convened
on 18.06.2020 for considering no confidence motion under
Haryana Municipal Election Rules. On 25.06.2020, a notice
was issued to the wife of the complainant by Sub
Divisional Officer (Civil), Tohana and all other Municipal
Councilors for convening a special meeting on 14.07.2020
for consideration of no confidence motion. Wife of the
complainant filed CWP No.9434 of 2020 against petitioner
No.1 Kirti Goyal and 8 other Municipal Councilors for
quashing the process of no confidence motion. Vide order
dated 13.07.2020, High Court quashed the order dated
18.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and notice
dated 25.06.2020 passed by SDO (Civil), Tohana.
Thereafter, on 03.09.2020, petitioner No.1 Kirti Goyal and
8 other Municipal Councilors again approached the Deputy
Commissioner, Fatehabad for convening a meeting for
initiating the process of no confidence motion against wife
of the complainant. On 26.09.2020, SDO (Civil), Tohana
issued notice to all 13 Municipal Councilors to be present
for special meeting for bringing no confidence motion
against the wife of the complainant. On 29.09.2020, SDO
(Civil), Tohana again issued notice to all the Municipal
Councilors for postponing the meeting dated 12.10.2020 to
16.10.2020 at 11:00 AM. Wife of the complainant filed
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -10-
CWP No.15425 of 2020, challenging the aforesaid notice
dated 29.09.2020 of no confidence motion. Wife of the
complainant also sought interim prayer for stay in the said
writ petition. The application for interim stay was
dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2020. The aforesaid writ
petition is pending for 11.01.2021.
[10]. Learned counsel further submitted that on
16.10.2020, office of Municipal Committee, Jakhal was
habited with number of police officials and staff of
Municipal Committee. Office was barricaded and Section
144 Cr.P.C was imposed. No person except the Municipal
Councilors were allowed to enter the office as voting for no
confidence motion was to be held. Father of the
complainant illegally entered the office despite presence of
numerous police persons. Since the petitioners and other
Municipal Councilors were availing their legal remedy,
therefore, such an act cannot be termed as instigation to the
deceased to commit suicide in terms of Section(s) 306/34
IPC.
[11]. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M
No.34831 of 2020 submitted that the suicide note is
undated and is not signed by the deceased. The police has
nominated 14 persons. The authenticity of the suicide note
is yet to be established. Petitioner Vikas Kamra @ Vikas
Kumar had already moved a complaint to Deputy
Commissioner, Fatehabad on 10.06.2020 in respect of
threat given by the deceased for committing suicide in case,
they moved no confidence motion against his daughter-in-
law i.e. wife of the complainant. Learned counsel adopted
the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners in
CRM-M No.34322 of 2020 and CRM-M No.34802 of
2020.
[12]. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M
No.35444 of 2020 has also adopted the same arguments.
[13]. Per contra, learned State counsel duly assisted by
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -11-
learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer on
the ground that the petitioners have been named in the
suicide note. All the Municipal Councilors are responsible
for the suicide of the deceased Nohar Chand.
[14]. As per the suicide note, Municipal Councilors
namely Harvinder Singh (Lala), Govind Ram, Swasti Rani,
Vikram, Vikram Saini, Amit Kumar and Vikas Karmar
have allegedly received huge amount in lacs for casting
their votes in favour of the wife of the complainant i.e.
daughter-in-law of the deceased. The total amount
allegedly paid to the aforesaid Municipal Councilors is
about Rs.1,40,00,000/-. The source of the aforesaid amount
is yet to be established. The allegations made by the
Municipal Councilors against the working of the
president/chairperson i.e. wife of the complainant and
allegations of misappropriation would be enquired into by
the competent authority. The allegations of the complainant
party as well as all the Municipal Councilors are yet to be
established with reference to material to be brought on
record by the parties at the relevant time.
[15]. At this stage, it would be appropriate to direct the
petitioners to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer
to join investigation on 24.11.2020 at 11.00 a.m. and in the
event of their arrest, they shall be enlarged on ad interim
bail, subject to their furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. However,
petitioners shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioners shall cooperate in the
investigation. Single instance of incorporation by the
petitioners would give rise to cancellation of interim bail in
accordance with law.”
Learned senior counsel further submitted that father of the
complainant, namely Nohar Chand, had committed suicide when a ‘No
Confidence Motion’ was moved against the Chairperson of Municipal
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -12-
Committee, Jakhal, namely Sima Rani, who is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of
the complainant. It is further submitted that almost all the members of the
Municipal Committee, Jakhal, who were in fact availing their legal right,
have been nominated as accused in the aforesaid FIR.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that in fact the
present FIR has been registered against the petitioner just to put pressure as
no such incident has taken place and the petitioner has neither used any fire
arm nor uploaded the video of the same on Facebook.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner has
even not recorded any such video, which is relied upon by the complainant.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is presently working in
New Delhi and has been residing there since long and, therefore, he is
separate in mess with his father Sitaram Mittal, who is one of the accused in
FIR No. 154.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the police has
registered the present FIR under Section 285 IPC read with Sections 27, 29,
30 of the Arms Act, wherein the maximum punishment provided under
Section 285 IPC is six months or fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both and the offence
is bailable. It is further submitted that the punishment provided under
Section 27 of the Arms Act shall not be less than three years and the
punishment under Sections 29 is three years or with fine or with both and
under Section 30 is upto six months or fine.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that a perusal of the
FIR nowhere reflects that the petitioner has either extended any threat to
complainant or had any intention of firing any shot towards the
complainant. It is further submitted that the residence of the father of the
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -13-
petitioner and that of complainant is 500 feet away and it is not the case of
the complainant that he himself recorded any such video and, therefore, the
copy of the CD, which has been supplied by the complainant to the police,
is yet to be proved as per provisions of Section 67-B of the Evidence Act.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner has
no such history of involvement in any such or similar activity.
Learned State counsel has filed the affidavit of DSP, Toahan,
and submitted that upon receiving the complaint, screenshots were taken
from the video supplied to police. The factual position and the fact of
registration of aforesaid FIR No. 154 are not denied by learned State
counsel, however, it is stated in the affidavit that as per video CD, the
petitioner was seen firing shots from a gun on the terrace of his house and
upon checking the record of the Police Station Jakhal, it was found that no
weapon is registered in the name of the petitioner, hence, the offences under
the Arms Act were added.
Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, further submitted that the custodial investigation of the
petitioner is required to effect the recovery of the weapon.
In reply, learned senior counsel has submitted that in the
investigation of the police as well as in the aforesaid affidavit of DSP,
Toahan, neither it is verified that the original recording of the video was
supplied by the complainant nor it has come that the petitioner ever
extended any threat to complainant. It is further submitted that even a bare
perusal of the FIR shows that no such allegations are made.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the police has not
verified as to who has posted the video on the social media and there is no
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
CRM-M-8912-2021 -14-
verification regarding the date when the CD was prepared or the video was
uploaded.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that even as per the
provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act, an offence is committed where
any gun fire is made in public gatherings, religious places, marriage parties
or other functions, whereas even as per the allegations in the FIR, the fire
were allegedly shot on the terrace of the house of the petitioner and there
was no person from the public and the house of the complainant is 500 feet
away from there.
Learned senior counsel has lastly argued that it is not the case
of the complainant that he has himself made any recording of the incident
and, therefore, such evidence is to be proved during the course of trial.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, considering the aforesaid
submissions made by learned counsel for the parites, I find force in the
arguments raised by learned senior counsel.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions envisaged
under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
However, it will be open for the Investigating Officer to call
upon the petitioner to join investigation by issuing him a written notice in
this regard.
12.03.2021 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2021 00:46:50 :::
Comments