New Delhi, Sep 29 (IANS): A court here has observed that it would not have granted anticipatory bail to G.K. Arora, principal of Bhimrao Ambedkar College, in the case of abetting suicide of a lab attendant if police had not concealed facts during the hearing.
The court made this observation Sep 26 while rejecting anticipatory bail plea of another accused, Ravinder Singh, who is a staffer at the college. The court also pulled up police for shielding the duo.
G.K. Arora and Ravinder Singh are accused of abetting suicide of Pavitra, a former lab assistant at the college's geography department, who had alleged that she was sexually and mentally harassed by two colleagues.
Metropolitan Magistrate Jagminder Singh in mid-September issued summons asking Arora and Ravinder Singh to appear in the court Sep 29 after rejecting police closure report filed in the case, observing that there is prima facie sufficient evidence to proceed against the duo under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (abetment to suicide).
Additional Sessions Judge Hemani Malhotra last Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Arora.
A day later, citing parity, another accused, Ravinder Singh, also moved the court for anticipatory bail.
While rejecting Ravinder Singh's plea, the court said inquiry report was flawed and suspicious.
The court said: "Had this fact been brought to the notice of this court while addressing arguments on anticipatory bail of co-accused Arora, I would have perused the dying declaration myself and perhaps would not have granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused Arora."
"Unfortunately public prosecutor did not argue at the time of anticipatory bail application of co-accused Arora and passed his duty to counsel of the complainant, who did not bring to my notice the fact that even though the SDM had denied to have recorded dying declaration in his hand-writing, he had not denied his signature on dying declaration," said Judge Malhotra.
It observed that the extract of the inquiry placed on record by defence counsel reveals that the inquiry officer had not questioned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) regarding his signature on the dying declaration.
The court said: "On my prima facie view, the inquiry report therefore is flawed and is suspicious."
It observed that investigating officer has not recorded statement of the SDM.
"In my considered opinion, if the statement was given by the SDM to the inquiry officer that the dying declaration was not recorded in his hand-writing, it was the bounden duty of the IO to record the statement of SDM under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to seek elucidation from the SDM regarding the writing on the dying declaration and if the same was signed by him," Judge Malhotra said.
"From the perusal of the dying declaration, it appears that same has been dictated by the SDM to his subordinate. It appears that police was in connivance with the accused persons to shield them."
Meanwhile, Arora, who appeared before Metropolitan Magistrate Jagminder Singh Monday, has received the copy of charge sheet while Ravinder Singh was granted exemption from personal appearance on the health grounds.
The magistrate has directed Ravinder Singh to appear before it on the next date of hearing Oct 7.
Alleging "sexual harassment at workplace", Pavitra set herself on fire outside the Delhi Secretariat Sep 30, 2013. She died Oct 7.