IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would be sufficient for court to construe that accused had availed of his right to be released on bail under provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. if condition stipulated therein were met.
(2) Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is intrinsically linked to right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. In matters of personal liberties, it would not be apposite to curtail the same on technicalities.
(3) Accused cannot be released on bail by a court on its own motion and it is necessary for accused to apply and offer to furnish bail.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Vibhu Bakhru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No. 486/2019 under Sections 393/397/34 of the IPC registered with PS Alipur.

2. Mr Perwez, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no risk that the petitioner would influence any witness; tamper any evidence or; flee from the law. He stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated without any material witness or evidence of his involvement in the offence. He further submitted that the petitioner was also entitled to compulsory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) but his applications for bail were rejected and the petitioner was not informed of his rights.

3. Ms Chauhan, learned APP countered the aforesaid contentions. Mr Amit Gupta, learned APP had also made submissions on behalf of the State on the question whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC as he stated that the said question is also common to other petitions.

4. The FIR in question (FIR No. 486/2019 under Sections 393/397/34 of the IPC with PS Alipur) was registered at the instance of one Karamveer (the complainant). The complainant is employed as a Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation. He stated that on 27.12.2019, after completing his duty, he was going to his village from GTB Bus Depot in his Wagon R car (bearing registration no. DL 7 CN 6340). At about 10.30 PM, when he was near Singhu School and Rajiv Gandhi Sports Complex, Singhu, three persons came on a motorcycle and stopped his vehicle. All the three boys alighted from the motorcycle and came towards him and indicated to him from their gestures, to open the glass window. He did so. They sought directions from him to Khatkarh Village. While he was giving them directions, one of the boys (who was sitting in the middle of the motorcycle) opened the door of his vehicle. One of the other boys (who was driving the motorcycle) took umbrage in the manner in which the complainant was speaking. The complainant stated that he got out from the car and the boy (who, according to the Investigating Officer (IO), is the petitioner herein) attempted to snatch his mobile phone. The complainant stated that he resisted the same and pulled his mobile phone back. At that stage, the boy was trying to snatch the phone and he (the petitioner) told his associate (the third boy who was sitting on the rear of the motorcycle) that the complainant would not give in easily and therefore, to shoot him (“ye aise nahi manega ise goli mar do”). At that stage, the third boy took out a weapon from the rear of his belt and shot the complainant in his leg. The complainant stated that he raised an alarm and the three boys fled on their motorcycle. The complainant described the age of the said boys as between 22 to 27 years. The boy who had fired the shot was described as thin and of whitish complexion. The complainant further stated that if the said boys were produced before him, he would recognise them.

5. The information regarding the said incident was received at PS Alipur and was recorded as DD No. 32A. Thereafter, one of the police officials reached at the spot and found the complainant’s car. He also found bullets and empty cartridges on the spot. He was informed that the injured was taken to the hospital. The IO reached the hospital and collected the MLC (MLC No. 9707/19). The complainant did not make a statement at that point of time. He made a statement three days later, on 30.12.2019 and on the basis of the said statement, the FIR was registered.

6. The status report has been filed, which states that on 10.01.2020, three persons – Manoj, Satpal and Subhash (the petitioner herein) – were arrested in FIR No. 176/2018 under Sections 457/380/34 of the IPC. During the interrogation, the said accused disclosed their involvement in the above incident. Thereafter, they were also arrested in connection with the present case (FIR No.