The court reaffirmed that serious evidence against an accused, including eyewitness testimony and weapon recoveries, outweighs claims of prolonged pre-trial detention when considering bail applications in heinous crimes.

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is an application under Section 483 read with Section 528 BNSS, 2023, filed on behalf of the petitioner Vishan Singh for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.341/2016, PS Harsh Vihar under Section s 302 /394/120-B/34 IPC.

Factual Background

2. As per the prosecution version, on 27.10.2016 at about 11:15 p.m., an information was received that a dead body was lying at A-3 1 Block, Harsh Vihar, Jain Colony, 27 Bigha, on the kachcha road leading towards Power House. On receipt of such information, police reached the spot and found an unknown deceased, later identified as Shakir @ Teetar, with firearm injury on the left side of the neck. The scene of crime was inspected, exhibits were seized and the body was sent to GTB Hospital for postmortem. The postmortem report confirmed that the death was a result of shock due to ante-mortem firearm injury to the head.

3. During investigation, the statement of the alleged eye witness Hakim was recorded, wherein, he stated that there was longstanding enmity between two factions of Village Daus Ras. One faction belonged to Fakru and the other faction belonged to Jafru. Hakim, who allegedly accompanied the deceased at the spot, stated that Shakir was lured to Delhi by the petitioner under the guise of friendship. Shakir and Hakim were taken to a deserted place in Harsh Vihar, where petitioner Banne Singh suddenly shot Shakir from behind, thereby, causing his death at the spot. Hakim was also assaulted and his mobile phone was robbed. The statements of family members and the villagers confirmed the animosity and the threats earlier extended by Hanif @ Rodu, an associate of Shaukat, who had been released from jail shortly before the incident.

4. The analysis of call detail records revealed that petitioner had been in frequent telephonic contact with Shaukat and Jafru before, during and after the incident and had used the robbed mobile phone of Hakim.

5. On 09.02.2017, petitioner and the co-accused Durgesh @ Durga were arrested by the Special Cell in case FIR No. 06/2017 under section 25 Arms Act. They admitted their involvement in the present case. Thereupon, they were arrested in this case on 16.02.2017. They refused to join the TIP. The weapon used in the murder of Shakir @ Teetar was recovered by the Special Cell in case FIR No. 06/2017.

6. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons under Section s 302 /394/120-B/34 IPC read with Section 25/27 Arms Act.

Submissions:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of statement of Hakim, who claims to be an eye witness, though, he did not name the petitioner in the FIR dated 28.10.2016 and later falsely introduced him by making baseless allegations. It is stated that the entire prosecution case rests on the doubtful testimony of PW-1 Hakim, whose version is inconsistent and improbable, as it is highly unlikely that in a case of gang rivalry, the eye witness would have been spared if the petitioner was truly the assailant. It was further submitted that there is no ballistic report matching the recovered weapon with the bullets found from the body of the deceased and there is no recovery of mobile phone from the petitioner. Even, the alleged mobile number attributed to the petitioner, is not in his name, as borne out from Customer application Form filed with the charge sheet.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased himself had a criminal history, was part of the gang rivalry in Village Daus Ras and had earlier committed the murder of one Hanif. It is argued that p