The seriousness of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the refusal to participate in TIP proceedings are crucial factors in bail decisions.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.524/2014, under Sections 302/307/148/120B IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that vide DD No. 33A, a PCR call was received at police station Ambedkar Nagar and on reaching the spot of incident, it was informed that "an incident of firing and knife" took place in front of shop no. A-21, Madngir, New Delhi. After investigation, one motor cycle bearing no. DL9SY9417, Hero Honda Splender was found at the spot, there was blood in front of the shop and thereafter, injured was taken to the hospital. As per the MLC No. 442660/2014, he was declared to be brought dead by his relatives. On the statement of eye witness, namely, Ram Singh, the aforesaid FIR was got registered.

3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State and perused the Status Report filed by the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in judicial custody since 06.08.2014. He submitted that the petitioner was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant had lodged the complaint dated 05.08.2014 against three persons for committing murder of his brother, however, the petitioner who was neighbor of the deceased and were also known to each other, was not named in the FIR. He submitted that most of the public witnesses have turned hostile and no incriminating evidence against the petitioner has come on record. He further submitted that two co-accused persons have already been convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi and other accused, namely, Sharukh has been identified in FSL CCTV footage, however, the petitioner herein has neither been identified in the said CCTV footage of the place of incident nor was identified by the witnesses in court during their deposition, thus, this itself falsifies the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner had no role to play is the commission of offence and the police has falsely implicated the petitioner by planting the weapon of offence i.e., the knife, which neither contained any blood stains nor the said knife was sent to FSL for detection of any blood. He further contended that in the absence of FSL report of DVR of video clip/CCTV Footage, the trial would take a long time to conclude and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. Furthermore, all public witnesses have been examined and only police officials remain to be examined, and there is no sufficient prosecution evidence for conviction of the petitioner who is in judicial custody for more than five years.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the status report. She submitted that during the course of investigation one knife was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and one country made pistol has also been recovered from possession of the co-accused Shahrukh, and after examination of alleged weapons, Dr. had opined that the injury mentioned in the MLC and PM report could be possible by alleged weapons recovered from accused persons. She further submitted that on 07.08.2014, petitioner was produced before the court for judicial TIP but he refused to participate in TIP proceedings. She submitted that during trial of the case, PW-3/Ram Singh has fully supported his version and correctly named accused persons including the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet under Sections 302/307/148/120B IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was filed against accused persons including the present petitioner.

6. It is trite law that there is no strait jacket formula govern