The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a prima facie view, avoidance of critical analysis to prevent prejudice, and consideration of factors such as severity of allegations, nature of evidence, accused's potential to flee or tamper with evidence, and previous antecedents in the decision-making process for granting bail.

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is an application, filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail by the accused, Aman Gaur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR No.30/2010, under section 302/307/34/147/ 148/323/325 IPC read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered at P.S. Dabri, New Delhi, on the statement of one Vivek Gaur, s/o Sh. Virender Kumar Sharma, R/o C-25, New Krishna Park, Vikas Puri. He had stated that he, along with his family, has been residing at the above-mentioned address and is running a factory of manufacturing scooter parts at Khasra No.38, Village Dabri, New Delhi. On 24.01.2010, at about 9.30/10 am Haryana Police came to Dabri, Delhi in connection with the investigation of case FIR No.2/2010, under section 380/342/147/148/448/506/511 IPC, registered by PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana, at the instance of one Sameer Gaur s/o Late Sh. R.K. Naseem. The Haryana Police had apprehended three accused persons from the factory of one Vinod Sharma, uncle of the complainant, which was also located in the same Khasra No.38, Dabri Village, New Delhi. At about 11 am, Vinod Sharma, his son Aman Gaur, the present petitioner, his driver Amrit Lal came to the spot. Neeraj, Rahul, Naresh Karotia, Sunita w/o Ram Mehar Singh, who were employee of Vinod Sharma also came to the spot. Thereafter, it is alleged that Vinod Sharma, his son Aman Gaur, the present petitioner, and his workers created an unlawful assembly with a common object to attack the rival faction. Sunita w/o Ram Mehar Singh and Laxman, another worker of Vinod Sharma brought danda (big wooden stick) from inside the factory. R.K. Naseem, a noted criminal lawyer, who was the uncle (Phoofaji) of the present complainant, had also come there and tried to pacify both the parties. It is alleged that when Sh. Naseem stood at one side, facing the factory of Vinod Sharma, the latter took a danda from his worker and hit it on the head of Sh. Naseem from the back with an intention to kill him. As a consequence of this, Sh. Naseem fell down and became unconscious. Aman Gaur, the present petitioner, is alleged to have taken out a revolver and fired three rounds with an intention to kill Sh. Rajiv Gaur and others but there was a narrow escape and nobody got injured. It is alleged that Aman Gaur threatened to kill while firing towards Sh. Rajiv Gaur and others. It is alleged that Neeraj, Ramesh Raghav, Kailash Khati, Naresh Karotia, Rahul and Amrit Lal belonging to the group of Vinod Sharma attacked the complainant’s brothers, namely, Sunny and Monty with the help of sticks (danda) and fists.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the aforesaid FIR was registered. Sh. Naseem was admitted to the hospital, where he unfortunately succumbed to his injuries after a few days without gaining the consciousness. Consequently, the offence under section 302 IPC was subsequently added to the FIR.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it is attributed to Aman Gaur that not only he formed a part of an unlawful assembly with a common object and prima facie attempted to murder by firing three rounds from his revolver and by uttering words like “jaan se maar dunga”, “papa inhone toh naak mein dum kar rakha hai” and “aaj inka khatma kar do” etc. but also in furtherance of common object caused death of Sh. Naseem.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso. Opportunity, was also given to the learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Siddhartha Luthra to intervene and address arguments, on behalf of the complainant. In addition to these, the learned APP also made his submissions. Needless to say that this is one of the applications for grant of regular bail, which was very hotly contested by the parties. The effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner was obviously to convince the Court that it is a fit case for grant of bail during the pendency of trial. This was equally and ably resis