$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18^th September, 2024 + BAIL APPLN. 2887/2024 DEEPAK @ TUTAN@ BHARAT SHARMA .....Applicant Through: Ms. Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms.

Megha, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.

Inspector Dharamveer Singh & Inspector Surender Singh CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 104/2016 dated 27.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sector 23 Dwarka for offences under Sections 302/307/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by Kanhaiya. It is alleged that the complainant along with the deceased Mukesh had gone to meet accused Vinay, Omvir, Sunil and the applicant at Sector 10 Dwarka. It is alleged that thereafter all the four accused persons attacked the complainant and the deceased Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2887/2024 Page 1 of Signed By:HARMINDER10 with knife and heavy iron rod. It is further alleged that once the complainant and the deceased became unconscious, the accused persons put them inside the Polo car of the complainant and took them towards Dhoolsiras intending to dispose the bodies by burning the car.

3. It is alleged that the Polo car of the complainant was driven by accused Sonu, whereas the other three accused persons, including the applicant, followed them in a Santro car. It is alleged that thereafter when the accused persons were going towards Dhoolsiras, they abandoned the Polo Car and fled the scene upon spotting the presence of a police personnel. It is alleged further that once the accused persons fled the scene, the complainant, who was in an injured state, himself drove the Polo car to the police barricades. On the statement of the complainant, the subject FIR was registered.

4. During the course of the investigation, the applicant was arrested on 27.03.2016.

5. Chargesheet in the present case was filed under Sections

302/307/201/34 of the IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the first DD entry of the alleged incident being DD No. 22A records the said incident as a case of accident, and that there is no mention of any form of assault. She submits that even the statements of the complainant are not consistent and are full of contradictions. She submits that the said Polo car, which belonged to the complainant, was not purchased by him until Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 2887/2024 Page 2 of Signed By:HARMINDER10 after the date of the incident. The complainant in his affidavit had mentioned the date of purchase of the car as 28.03.2016, that is, a day after the registration of FIR.

7. She submits that the deceased had died due to stab wounds, however, no weapon was recovered at the instance of the applicant. She submits that the applicant is languishing in custody since 27.03.2016, and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. She submits that only formal witnesses remain to be examined, and there is no possibility of threatening/intimidating the sole eyewitness who already has been cross-examined.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the request for grant of bail to the present applicant. He submits that at the instance of the applicant, the place of incident was pointed out, and blood stained clothes of the applicant were also recovered. He submits that the FSL expert opined that the blood found on the clothes of the applicant matched with the blood sample of the deceased and the complainant. He submits that the complainant has already been examined, and he has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court and has also corroborated his earlier statement.

9. He submits that the complainant had specifically deposed that the applicant was holding a pana, and