The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature and gravity of the offence, along with the potential for influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in serious criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.43/2018 dated 21.02.2018 registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar for offences under Section 302/120-B/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 arms act.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present FIR are as follows:-

i. On 21.02.2018, information was received at Police Station Sadar Bazar vide DD No.12a stating that one person is lying dead and his throat has been slit. Police reached the spot i.e Shahi Idgah Park, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and found a male body there with his throat slit and injury marks on his abdomen. Deceased was identified as Shoaib @ Gandhi by the father of the deceased. FIR No.43/2018 dated 21.02.2018 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar for offences under Section 302 IPC.

ii. During investigation, one witness namely, Md. Tahid, disclosed that on 20.02.2018 at about 9:15 PM he saw the deceased Shoaib @ Gandhi along with Sakir, Sharukh (the Petitioner herein), Ravi and one CCL (X). It is stated that all of them were consuming liquor. Tahid disclosed that he left the place at about 10:00 PM. He further stated that at about 8:00 aM in the morning he came to know that Shoaib @ Gandhi has been stabbed to death.

iii. It is stated that on 22.02.2018 Ravi Kohli was apprehended. He disclosed that he and Sakir had enmity with Shoaib @ Gandhi and on 20.12.2018, at about 8:00 PM, Sakir called him and asked him to come to Idgah. It is stated that when he reached Idgah, Sakir, Sharukh (the Petitioner herein), Shoaib @ Gandhi & the CCL - 'X', were already there and they were consuming liquor. It is stated that he also joined them and started consuming liquor. It is stated that after some time he had a heated argument with Shoaib and they had a fight. It is stated that during the scuffle Sakir handed-over a knife to him and the Petitioner herein and the CCL - 'X' held Shoaib. It is stated that he gave several blows on the chest and abdomen of the deceased - Shoaib @ Gandhi. It is further stated that when the deceased fell on the ground, Ravi slit his throat with the knife.

iv. On the disclosure statement of Ravi, Shakir and the Petitioner herein were arrested. The knife, which was used in the incident was recovered and opinion has been received from doctor regarding the knife and the doctor has opined that the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the knife recovered from the accused or by any such similar weapon. Blood stained clothes of the Petitioner were recovered and sent to FSL and the FSL report has opined that the blood on the clothes of the Petitioner is of deceased's - Shoaib.

v. Charge-sheet has been filed. Trial has begun and eight out of twenty witnesses have been examined.

vi. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court by filing an application for grant of regular bail and the same was rejected by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 11.11.2019.

vii. The petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court for grant of bail.

3. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the witness - Tahid, who had narrated the entire incident to the Police, has been examined and he has turned hostile. He submits that the Petitioner should be deemed innocent unless he is found guilty. He submits that public witnesses have been examined and there is no necessity for keeping the Petitioner in further custody.

4. Per contra, Mr. amit Chadha, learned aPP for the State, contends that the Petitioner is accused of committing a very heinous offence wherein a person has lost his life because of multiple stab wounds. He states that just because the witness who had seen the Petitioner and other accused with the deceased has turned hostile, it does not mean that the entire evidence against the Petitioner has to be discarded. He further states that certain witnesses are yet to be examined and the possibility of Petitioner tampering with e