Gurgaon: A city court dismissed as premature an anticipatory bail plea filed by an employee of a private airline after his wife allegedly died by suicide at their Sector 71 residence. The court observed that there was “neither an FIR nor any immediate requirement for his arrest”. Since police did not presently require Sharma’s arrest or custody, the court, on Oct 5, held that his apprehension had no basis.Additional sessions judge Sudeep Goel, while passing the order on the plea filed by Air India Training Academy employee Yuvraj Yogendra Sharma, held that a person seeking anticipatory bail must demonstrate a legitimate and objective basis for apprehending arrest, “rather than relying on a vague fear or suspicion”. Sharma had apprehended arrest following a complaint by the brother of the deceased, Kirty Mishra.Relying on Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Union of India vs Sunil Biyani, the court said pre-arrest protection cannot be granted when the application itself is “premature”. According to the order, police received information on Aug 27 that Mishra was found dead in CHD Avenue area of Sector 71. Police and a crime scene team reached the spot. The deceased’s brother told police that he learnt about the death around 6.30am and was informed by his brother-in-law that the couple had a small argument over his affairs, following which Mishra locked herself in a room. Police initially found that no cognisable offence was made out. The laptop and mobile phones of the deceased and her husband were seized and sent to DITAC for forensic examination.Seeking anticipatory bail, Sharma’s counsel argued that he had a genuine apprehension of arrest based on allegations by the deceased’s brother. She submitted that absence of an FIR by itself could not bar pre-arrest protection and pointed out that Sharma had no criminal antecedents, had local roots and had cooperated with the investigation. She also argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the matter arose from a family dispute.The prosecution opposed the plea, saying the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and no FIR had been registered. The investigating officer told the court that police did not require Sharma’s custody or even his joining the investigation at that stage, and that any action would be considered after receipt of the Digital Investigation Training and Analysis Centre (DITAC) report. DITAC comes under Haryana Police.
