Read Time: 09 minutes
The accused was involved in an illicit affair with the husband of the school-teacher. Together with her father, the accused hired professionals to kill the school teacher after the husband had refused to divorce his wife due to societal pressure.
The Delhi High Court, recently, denied bail to a woman who was involved in the shooting and murder of a school teacher, noting that “The present case is one of a well planned murder where professionals have been hired to commit the heinous crime”.
“The Petitioner is a professional actress and is in a position to abscond and influence the witnesses… Looking at the gravity of the offence, the manner in which the incident took place and the fact that the Petitioner's father has absconded, after being released on bail, the chances of the Petitioner fleeing from justice are high”, the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted.
Angel Gupta, the petitioner, sought bail in a case involving the shooting death of Sunita, a school teacher, while she traveled to work. Investigation revealed a relationship between Angel Gupta and Sunita's husband, Manjeet, which raised suspicion. Evidence included emails, recorded threats, and a diary from the deceased. Angel Gupta's father, Rajiv Gupta, was implicated in conspiring to hire shooters through his driver, Deepak. CCTV footage, call records, and voice samples corroborated involvement.
Angel Gupta, Manjeet, and Rajiv Gupta were arrested in November 2018. A charge sheet was filed in January 2019, and charges were framed. Rajiv Gupta absconded after interim bail and was declared a proclaimed offender in August 2023. The Supreme Court mandated trial completion by August 2024. Angel Gupta filed and withdrew multiple bail applications, with the last application dismissed in March 2024.
Advocate Joginder Tuli, representing the petitioner, argued that Gupta had been in custody since 01.11.2018 and complied with interim bail conditions. He noted the trial was incomplete despite an Apex Court order to conclude it within eight months and mentioned that she was caring for her ailing mother and posed no risk of tampering with evidence.
Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, representing the State, claimed that Gupta, aware of the deceased's husband's marital status, had an illicit affair and conspired to kill the deceased when the husband refused a divorce. He argued substantial evidence suggested Angel Gupta’s guilt and emphasized the severity of the crime, stating that the Prosecution made efforts to avoid trial delays.
The court noted that PW-2, the daughter of the deceased, testified that her father had an illicit relationship with Angel Gupta, which led to tension in their household. PW-2 further stated that her father often did not return home for months and instead resided with Angel Gupta. PW-2 also provided a diary written by the deceased, wherein the deceased expressed concerns for her safety and that of her children. Call detail records and digital evidence demonstrated the close relationship between Angel Gupta and the deceased’s husband. A phone recording provided by the deceased’s brother indicated that when the husband showed reluctance to divorce due to societal pressures, Angel Gupta, with the intent of eliminating the deceased, conspired with her father to kill the deceased.
The Court noted that the trial court was making sincere efforts to conclude the trial and that the delay did not automatically justify granting bail, considering the repeated bail applications by the accused and the established parameters for bail.
The court observed that Angel Gupta filed multiple bail applications and had been granted interim bail for her mother's care. After her mother's operation was successful and her condition improved, Angel Gupta continued to seek bail extensions. The court further noted that Angel Gupta’s father was absconding, and there was a significant risk that Angel Gupta might also abscond if released, potentially aided by her father, who had evaded surrender and misused his freedom.
The case involved a planned murder executed by hired professionals. If convicted, Angel Gupta could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. As a professional actress, Angel Gupta posed a risk of absconding and influencing witnesses. Given the severity of the crime, the nature of the incident, and the father's absconding status, the likelihood of Angel Gupta fleeing justice was substantial.
In the interest of justice, the court directed the trial court to ensure the trial concluded within five months from the date of this order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
For Petitioner: Advocates Joginder Tuli, Joshini Tuli and Shrikant SharmaFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman with Advocates C.M. Sangwan and Saksham AggarwalCase Title: Angel Gupta v State (2024:DHC:8535)
Please Login or Register
