Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
ALADIN @ LIP LIP – Petitioner
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1663 of 2016
Decided On : 09-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devinder Khatana, Mr. Jitender Bidhuri and Mr. Dinesh
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Chadha with Sanjay Sharma, Pankaj Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of not delving into the facts pending adjudication before the trial court and the need to focus on whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for bail, in addition to considering the legal principles related to bail and the factors to be borne in mind while granting bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302/395/412/482/34 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to bail and enumerated the factors to be considered while granting bail. It emphasized the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. The court also highlighted the importance of not delving into the facts pending adjudication before the trial court and the need to focus on whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Section 302/395/412/482/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was part of a gang involved in an incident where two persons lost their lives after being hit by a car used by the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the blood stains found from the car matched with the blood of the petitioner, indicating his involvement in the crime. It also noted that only 11 out of 55 witnesses had been examined, and two more public witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering the legal principles related to bail and the facts and circumstances of the case, the court dismissed the bail application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the crime, the pending examination of witnesses, and the application for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of not delving into the facts pending adjudication before the trial court and the need to focus on whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for bail. It also considered the legal principles related to bail and the factors to be borne in mind while granting bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, stating that the facts emerging from the record culminated in the dismissal of the application. It clarified that the order did not express a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case, which would be decided by the trial court.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 115/2014 under Section 302/395/412/482/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Vasant Kunj South, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant along with other persons who worked for caterer, were returning on 18.01.2014 at about 1 AM from Nitish Kunj. At about 1.05 AM they reached near D Mart Hotel where a Maruti Swift Car came from their behind. Five young persons of ages between 20-25 years came out of the car and started beating them. Complainant and other people tried to save themselves and ran away in different directions including service lane. But after sometime they re-gathered. It is alleged that the accused persons came back again in the car with intention to kill them and hit all of them with moving car, which caused the injuries to two persons namely Ram Dev and Raju. It is further alleged that one of the accused persons robbed the mobile phone of one of the victims. Thereafter they fled away in the car, which was chased by one Pajero. Driver of Pajero noted the registration number on plate of the car as DL 9 CX 1531.
3. During investigation, it was found that the car was a stolen property belonging to one M/s. Gautam Jewellers. Upon surveillance of a robbed mobile, five accused persons were apprehended out of which two were JCL (Juveniles in conflict with law). Investigation completed, the accused persons (except JCL) were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302/395/482/34 of IPC. Trial commenced and 11 out of 55 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.01.2014 and since then he is in custody. He filed bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2016. Now the petitioner has filed the instant application before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is 20 years of age and belongs to a poor family, and he is in judicial custody since 30.01.2014. It is further contended that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and material witnesses have been examined and the allegation of beating and hitting by the car are against the co-accused Surender. More so, the eye witness to the case has clearly identified Mr. Surender as the person who hit the victims with Danda and further as the driver of who crushed the two deceased. It is further contended that nothing incriminating has been found to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. More so, investigation of the case is complete, charge sheet has been filed and no material is required to be recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner. It is further contended that only 11 out of 55 witnesses have been examined and the conclusion of the trial may take a considerable amount, therefore the petitioner be granted bail in the present case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the accused persons have been using the stolen car and that too by using a false registration number and accordingly they have been charged with Section 482 of IPC. One of the accused persons has robbed the mobile of Manoj Kumar @ Peter and Section 395 of IPC is also added. As per the post mortem report of the deceased Raju and Ramdev, the doctor has opined and gave the cause of death to be head injuries of which sequel consequent to blunt force/surface impact in respect of both the deceased persons.
6. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that during the scuffle between the accused persons with the catering workers, the petitioner had sustained injuries and the report of the CFSL expert reveals that the DNA profiling of exhibit lifted fro
