The gravity of the offence and the prima facie involvement of the accused can outweigh factors such as prolonged custody and the likely duration of the trial when considering bail applications.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State (petitioner herein) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 1187/2015 registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC at Police Station Hauz Khas whereby the respondents, i.e. Tarun @ Maddy, Vikas @ Shammi, Ashish Balguer, Vikas Balguer and Vishal Balguer, were granted bail as the other co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav was granted bail vide order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 1187/2015 registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC at Police Station Hauz Khas.

2. The brief facts as per the charge-sheet are that on 22.10.2015 on receipt of DD No.10A regarding one Rupesh Tanwar and one Rohit Bansal being admitted at Trauma Centre, AIIMS, ASI Dalbir Singh, PS Hauz Khas visited there and lodged First Information Report after recording the statement of one of the injured-Rohit Bansal. The said injured informed that on 21.10.2015, he along with his friends Vinit, Sonu, Rupesh (since deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in two separate cars, i.e. Santro No-UP 16AM 6317 and Honda Civic No-DL 7CF 4118, at around 12.00-12.15 (night) and while dancing in the said club his hand stuck with an individual to whom he said ‘sorry’. On this the said individual abused and questioned him 'does he know who he is?' and a quarrel started between the two groups and the said individual took a glass from one of his friend and hit the complainant, but the matter was pacified by the bouncers/security personals of the club. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends were sent out of the club and when they came out of the club and reached IIT Gate he (Rohit Bansal) realised that his mobile phone was missing which might have fallen during the quarrel and he along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu came back in Santro car to the club. When they reached near the club at some distance before the club, they found that a Mercedes and EON car had blocked the road and a Bolero car was parked on the road-side. When they asked them to let them pass, one of the boys with whom an altercation had taken place in the club, threatened to teach them a lesson. Thereafter, all the 7/8 assailants started beating them, one of the assailant brought an iron rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh and when he intervened to save Rupesh, they also made him to fall on the road. Thereafter, one of the assailant lifted a cemented brick and hit him on his head and they all ran towards different directions to save themselves leaving Santro car at the spot. It was further informed that when he returned back to take his car, he saw Rupesh lying at the spot unconscious and had sustained various injuries on his body. Thereafter, he along with one Sunil took Rupesh to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment. Subsequently, a case under Section 307/308/34 IPC was registered.

3. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet against Tarun @ Maddy, Vikas, Anil Kumar Yadav and Vikas @ Shammi was prepared under Sections 302/308/34 IPC; charge-sheet against Ashish and Vishal was prepared under Sections 302/308/201/34 IPC and charge-sheet against Siddhant @ Goldy was prepared under Section 201/212 IPC.

4. Subsequently, the present respondents filed bail application before the Trial Court and consequently, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2017 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi granted bail to the respondents on the ground that since about for one and a half years they were in judicial custody and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and co-accused (Anil Kumar Yadav) was already granted bail.

Hence the present petition.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner/S