Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
Narender Kumar Ahlawat - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 929 of 2016
Decided On : 01-06-2016
For the Appellants :Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjali Rajput, Mr. Nihit Dalmia, Mr. Puneet Singh Dhir & Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Chadha, APP. Mr. Sanjay Abbot and Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Advocates.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the stage of the trial and the seriousness of the allegations in bail applications.
Headnote:
Regular Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 302/149/307/147/148/149/323/325/342/365/368/395/397/452/120B and Arms Act 25/27/30 - The court discussed the medical condition of the petitioner, his alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy, and the stage of the trial. The court found that the petitioner's medical treatment could be continued in judicial custody and that it was not the stage to comment on the merits of the case. The bail application was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail in a case involving multiple serious charges including criminal conspiracy and murder. The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the crime and that his medical condition required treatment outside of judicial custody. The state opposed the bail application, citing the petitioner's alleged role in the conspiracy and the stage of the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's medical treatment could be continued in judicial custody and that it was not the stage to comment on the merits of the case. The court also noted serious allegations against the petitioner and the apprehension of influencing prosecution witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's medical condition, alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy, and the stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's ability to receive medical treatment in judicial custody, the stage of the trial, and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail in FIR N.497/2012, under Sections 302/149/307/147/148/149/323/325/342/365/368/395/397/452/120B IPC and Sections 25/27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Mehrauli (Crime Branch).
2. Arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant were heard at length.
3. The allegations levelled in the present case are that on 17.11.2012 at 11.50 a.m., on receipt of a call, the police reached DLF Farm No.42, Chattarpur where a dead body of Hardeep Singh was found in the guard room. On receipt of another call at 12.28 p.m., police reached the spot where statement of Nand Lal, driver of Hardeep Singh was recorded who stated that on that day he was present at Farm House No.42. One Sonu came running from gate no.3 and stated that 30/40 persons were breaking the gate no.1. When complainant came downstairs, 4-5 cars having several persons came inside the farm house including Bisht, Anna and Prembir who were working with Ponty Chadha as PSOs. He further stated that Bisht and Anna grabbed him and Bisht handed him over to Prembir who fired two gun shots in the air and told the persons present in the farm house to vacate the farm house. The other persons who came in cars started beating the persons present in the farm house with hockey stick, sword, sticks and dragged out the persons present in the farm house. They put Nand Lal in car and took him to Farm House No.34, Central Drive, Chattarpur and detained him in a room. After sometime, one person came from outside and called the five persons present in Farm House No.34 and then all of them left from there. Nand Lal escaped from the said farm house. On the basis of statement of Nand Lal, FIR was registered.
Another call was received by police at 13.20 hours to the effect that Gurdeep Singh @ Ponty Chadha had been admitted as brought dead in Fortis hospital. In the hospital, one Sukhdev Singh Namdhari met the police officials and on his statement FIR No.496/2012 was registered. In the said FIR, it was alleged that on 17.11.2012 at about 9.30 a.m., Sukhdev Singh Namdhari and his friend Gurdeep Singh @ Ponty Chadha went to Farm House No.21 and after that they reached Farm House No.42 but the gate of the said farm house was locked. Narender, Security Manager reached there and opened the lock of the gate with the help of key. Hardeep along with his PSOs reached there and opened fire on Narender. After that Hardeep turned towards them and opened the fire on Ponty Chadha and also fired two bullets towards him. Sachin Tyagi, PSO of Sukhdev Singh Namdhari fired upon Hardeep to save him.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was granted interim bail on medical grounds by the Trial Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 which was extended from time to time. It was further argued that the petitioner was an employee of Ponty Chadha, however the petitioner was arrested on the last day of filing of charge sheet. It was further argued that nothing incriminating has been recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation as the charge sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed against him. The petitioner is a victim/injured in the present case and he had no motive to commit such crime as he was neither beneficiary nor receiver of any property in question. It was further argued that the condition of the petitioner is not stable as he has to move from one place to another on a wheel chair. The petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2013 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is further argued that the petitioner was just following the directions of his employer and had no role in the commission of crime of the present case.
5. On the o
