High Court Of Delhi
STATE THROUGH DELHI POLICE - Appellant
Versus
AMARDEEP SINGH GILL - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 1630 of 1999
Decided On : 07/07/1999
(ii) Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 437 (1) – Expression “if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence”- “Magistrate is concerned with existence of materials and against accused and not so as to whether that material is credible or not on merits”- In light of subsequent investigation and material placed before him magistrate may change his opinion and hold a contrary view. (Para 20)
(iii) Bail - Ordinarily High Court will not interfere in grant of bail by Magistrate or Court of Sessions - Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances have to be made out for High Court to interfere and to substitute its judgment for discretion of magistrate. (Para 26)
(iv) Bail – Before granting bail, Court must take into consideration various factors such as the nature and seriousness of offence, nature of evidence, circumstances peculiar to accused and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. (Para 34)
Result: Petitions disposed of.
( 1 ) IN Crl. M. (M) No. 1630/99 the State through Delhi Police is seeking the setting aside/striking off of the order dated 20th May, 1999 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has granted bail to the Respondents. The Respondents in the case arc Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony, Alok Khanna and Amit Jhingan. They are hereinafter respectively REFERRED TO to as Tony, Alok and Amit.
( 2 ) IN Crl. M. (M.) No. 1701/99 the State through Delhi Police has challenged the grant of bail to Vikas Yadav (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as Vikas ). He was granted bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by an order dated 29th May, 1999.
( 3 ) BOTH these petitions arise as a result of F. I. R. No. 287/99 registered in Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi for offences under Section 302/20v120-B/211/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the IPC ). The order dated 29th May, 1999 relies upon the observations made in the order dated 20th May, 1999. Consequently, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard together.
( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were addressed by learned counsel for the parties on 25th, 29th and 30th June, 1999 when orders were reserved. Learned counsel for the Respondents have filed detailed written submissions which have also been considered.
( 5 ) THE occasion for registering the F. I. R. arose because of an incident which occurred in a restaurant called Tamarind Court Cafe in Qutub Colonnade in the Mehrauli area of New Delhi. On the night of 29th April, 1999, a party was on at the restaurant. The admitted position is that more than a hundred people were attending that party. At around 2. 00 A. M. on the night of 29/30th April, 1999, one Siddharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma approached the bar counter. At that place about 5-6 people and one waiter were present. Manu Sharma asked the waiter for two drinks of alcohol. The waiter did not serve him. Manu Sharma told by one lady named Malini Ramani and another lady named Jessica Lal that the party was over and liquor was not available. It is alleged that Manu Sharma said words to the effect that he would now have to adopt his own way. Jessica Lal tried to persuade him not to get angry. However, Manu Sharma pulled out a pistol from his trousers and fired one shot towards the ceiling. He then Fired another shot which hit Jessica Lal above her left eye and she fell down.
( 6 ) JESSICA Lal was then taken to a nearby hospital in Safdarjung Enclave. The police were also informed of the incident. They arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of one witness and registered a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code In the early hours of 30th April, 1999, Jessica Lal was declared dead whereupon the F. I. R. was converted from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 302 of the IPC.
( 7 ) THE sequence of events as brought out during the investigation and as placed before me suggests that Tony, Alok, Vikas and Manu Sharma had assembled at Tony s residence in Friends Colony (West) on the evening/night of 29th April, 1999. From there, they departed for the Tamarind Court Cafe. Tony and Alok came together in a Tata Sierra while Vikas and Manu Sharma came in Vikas s Tata Safari. Prior to their leaving Tony s residence, a phone call was made to Amit who reached Tamarind Court Cafe separately in his Maruti Gypsy.
( 8 ) AFTER the shooting, it appears that Tony, Alok and Vikas left together in the Tata Sierra and Amit went home on his own. Manu Sharma made his way back to Tony s residence via Indian Cottage Industries, Mehrauli. It is alleged that somewhere near Indian Cottage Industries, he concealed the pistol (which was the weapon of offence) and thereafter proceeded to reach Tony s house. After Tony, Alok, Vikas and Manu Sharma were together again in Tony s residence, To. ny and Vikas went back to the Mehrauli area to pick up Vikas s Tata Safari. While Vikas was in the process boarding and d
REFERRED TO : State of Maharashtra v. Captain Badhikota Subha Rao AIR 1989 SC 2292
Gurcharan Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration)
Court on its own motion v. Vishnu Pandit and Anr.
Sandeep Goyal and Am. v. State of Punjab and Am.
Chuna Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.