JUDGMENT

S.P. Garg, J. The instant petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner-Rohit Bansal to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 27.2.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in FIR No.1187/2015 registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC at Police Station Hauz Khas whereby the respondent No.2-Anil Yadav (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent') was granted regular bail. The petition is contested by `the respondent'.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP and learned Senior counsel for `the respondent' and have examined the file. Undisputedly, `the respondent' is facing trial in case FIR No.1187/2015 registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC.

3. Briefly stated the facts as projected in the charge-sheet are that on 22.10.15 on receipt of DD No.10A regarding admission of injured Rupesh Tanwar and Rohit Bansal at Trauma Centre, AIIMS, ASI Dalbir Singh went there and lodged First Information Report after recording petitioner's statement. The petitioner informed that on 21.10.2015, he along with his friends Vinit, Sonu, Rupesh (since deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club in two cars i.e. Santro and Honda Civic at 12.00-12.15 (night). During dance on the floor of the club, the petitioner's hand stuck with an individual to whom he said `sorry'. The said individual abused and boosted him if he did not know him. The matter was pacified by the bouncers. Thereafter, they came out of the club and reached IIT Gate in cars. The petitioner further disclosed that he found his mobile to have fallen during quarrel. He along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu went back in Santro car to the club. When they reached near the club at some distance before it, he found that a Mercedes and EON car had blocked the road; Bolero car was parked on the road-side. When they asked them to remove the car, one of the boys with whom an altercation had taken place in the club, threatened to teach them lesson as they were the individuals who had misbehaved in the club. Thereafter, all the 7/8 assailants started beating them. Out of them, one brought a rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh. When he intervened to save Rupesh, they also made him to fall on the road. One of the assailants lifted a cemented brick and hit him on his head. They all ran towards different directions to save themselves leaving Santro at the spot. He further informed that when he returned to take back his car, he saw Rupesh lying at the spot unconscious; he had sustained various injuries on the body. He and his friend Sunil put Rupesh in Santro and took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre. The complainant gave description of the assailants in the complaint. A case under Section 307/308/34 IPC came to be registered.

4. During the course of investigation, statements of Sagar Sharma @ Sonu, Jitender, Vinit, Mohinder @ Monu and Sunil conversant with facts were recorded. Statement of Vinod Sharma and Jeyavelu, Managers of the club, were also recorded. CCTV footage of the camera installed at the spot was viewed; footage was obtained and photographs were developed. Rupesh's statement could not be recorded as he remained unfit throughout and finally succumbed to the injuries on 26.10.2015. During investigation, `the respondent' and his associates were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. Certain recoveries were effected at their instance. The respondent and his associates declined to participate in Test Identification Proceedings. Upon completion of investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against all of them including `the respondent' for commission of offences under Sections 302/308/201/34 IPC; charge-sheet against Siddhant @ Goldy was prepared under Section 201/212 IPC.

5. By a detailed/comprehensive impugned combined order, the Trial Court ordered to frame charge against all for commission of offence under Sections 302/308/34 IPC; charge