Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs State of NCT of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Sanjay Kumar Pundeer – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2698 of 2023
Decided On : 15-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Dhruv Gupta & Mr. Anubhav Garg, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State with Insp. Nitin Kumar & Insp.
Meena Yadav, P.S. Dabri.
Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for LR of the victim.

Headnote:
default bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 - 302/34 IPC r/w 25 & 27 Arms Act - The court held that the chargesheet filed in the present case was not incomplete.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an application seeking default/statutory bail in a criminal case under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The applicant argued that the chargesheet was incomplete due to non-filing of certain documents and reports.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the bail application, stating that the chargesheet filed in the present case was not incomplete. The court emphasized that the chargesheet was filed upon completion of investigation and that the FSL report or any other scientific examination would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected by the Investigating Officer and filed along with the chargesheet.
Issues: The main issue was whether the chargesheet filed in the present case was incomplete due to non-filing of certain documents and reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the chargesheet was filed upon completion of investigation and that the FSL report or any other scientific examination would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected by the Investigating Officer and filed along with the chargesheet.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the applicant was allowed to approach the concerned learned Trial Court seeking bail on merits.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The court examined whether the chargesheet filed in the case was incomplete due to the non-filing of certain documents and reports. It was found that the chargesheet was filed upon completion of investigation, and any scientific reports or examinations, such as FSL reports, are corroborative rather than essential for the chargesheet to be considered complete (!) (!) .
The investigation was deemed complete when the chargesheet was filed, and subsequent supplementary reports or reports from forensic examinations could be filed later as supplementary chargesheets. The absence of these reports at the time of filing did not render the chargesheet incomplete (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the filing of a chargesheet is sufficient to mark the completion of investigation, and the filing of a supplementary chargesheet is permissible to include additional evidence or reports obtained later, such as forensic reports or expert opinions (!) (!) .
The right to default or statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC arises when the chargesheet is not filed within the statutory period. Since the chargesheet was filed within the prescribed time, the applicant was not entitled to default bail on that ground (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the absence of a sanction order under certain provisions of the Arms Act at the time of filing the chargesheet does not necessarily make the chargesheet incomplete, especially when the investigation was otherwise complete and sufficient evidence was available for prosecution (!) (!) .
The court also discussed that further investigation can continue even after the filing of the chargesheet, and expert reports or scientific evidence can be filed subsequently, which does not invalidate the chargesheet (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for default/statutory bail, holding that the chargesheet filed was not incomplete and that the applicant's right to bail had not been defeated due to procedural deficiencies in the evidence or reports at the time of filing (!) (!) .
The applicant was advised to approach the trial court for bail on merits, as this decision was limited to the issue of default bail based on the completeness of the chargesheet (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks the following prayers:

"(a) Pass an order directing that the petitioner be granted default/statutory bail in FIR No. 747/20217 dated 07.09.2021, P.S. Dabri, registered u/s 302/34 IPC r/w 25 & 27 Arms Act, being tried as Session Case No. 174/2022 titled "State Vs. Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu & Drs" and subjudice before the court of Sh. Vipin Kharb, Ld. ASJ, South-West, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi;

(b) set-aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the court of Sh. Vipin Kharb, Ld. ASJ, South-West, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 747/2021 dated 07.09.2021, P.S. Dabri, being tried as Session Case No. 174/2022 titled "State Vs. Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu & Ors.";

Background

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under:

i. The present FIR was registered on 07.09.2021 at the instance of one Manoj Gupta who alleged while he and his friend Chaman (`the deceased') were sitting and talking, Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu and Sanjay Singh Pundeer @ Kaku (`the applicant') came. They were carrying a katta and a knife, respectively.

ii. It was alleged that thereafter, the said persons, alongwith some other boys surrounded the complainant and the deceased. Ramu shot the deceased with a katta and thereafter, the applicant stabbed him with a knife multiple times.

iii. The deceased was taken to the hospital. The MLC of the deceased reflected that he was `declared brought dead'.

iv. The present FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

v. During the course of investigation, all the relevant exhibits were seized and sent to the Forensics Science Laboratory (`FSL') for further examination. The knife which is alleged to have been used by the applicant in commission of the offence was also seized and sent to FSL for examination.

vi. The applicant and co-accused Kumar Pal Singh were arrested on 08.09.2021.

vii. Co-accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu was arrested on 11.09.2021. One country made firearm pistol (desi katta) with one used cartridge and one live .315 bore cartridge was recovered from his possession.

viii. On 08.09.2021, the applicant was remanded to police custody for two days, i.e., till 10.09.2021. Thereafter, the applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 10.09.2021.

ix. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 02.12.2021 qua the accused persons including the present applicant. The applicant and co-accused Rajeev Gupta @ Ramu were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 302/34/120B of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Co-accused Kumar Pal Singh was chargesheeted under Section 120B of the IPC.

x. The cause of death of the deceased was opined as "haemorrhagic shock consequent upon firearm and stab injuries to multiple vital organs via injury no. 1 to 7, all of which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature".

xi. In the chargesheet that was filed in the present case, it was stated that the FSL report of all the exhibits was awaited and a supplementary report in terms of Section 173(8) of the CrPC would be filed placing the results on record.

xii. On 06.12.2021, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi took cognizance of offences under Sections 302/120B/34 of the IPC.

xiii. Vide order dated 03.03.2022, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, since the accused persons had been chargesheeted for offences under Sections 302/34/120B of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, which were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

xiv. On 14.03.2023, the first supplementary chargesheet was filed in the present case, by way of which the FSL report in relation to the pistol recovered