Bail Application No.1480&1534/2008

Page 1 of 7

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Bail Application No.1480/2008

%

Reserved on : 23.1.2009

Date of decision: 29.1.2009

PARMIT @ PEHLWAN

…PETITIONER

STATE

...RESPONDENT

WITH

+

Bail Application No.1534/2008

SANDEEP @ KALE

…PETITIONER

STATE

...RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared for the parties

For Petitioners/applicants: Mr. L.S. Saini, Advocate

For State

: Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2.To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3.Whether the judgment should be

Yes

reported in the Digest?

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two bail

applications filed on behalf of Parmit @ Pehlwan S/o Jagbir Singh

and Sandeep @ Kale S/o Ramesh Kumar, who are undergoing

2009:DHC:302

Bail Application Nos.1480& 1534/2008

Page 2 of 7

trial in a case arising out of FIR No. 133/2007 under Sections

307/302/34 IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act

registered at Police Station Kanjhawala and are in judicial custody

since 23.7.2007 and 22.7.2007 respectively, except for a brief

period of fifteen days when the applicant, Parmit @ Pehlwan was

released on interim bail on account of his sister’s marriage.

2. According to counsel for the applicants, the applicants are

entitled to bail inasmuch as, the alleged eye-witness of the

incident, namely, PW-1 Anil Kumar S/o Hukum Singh at whose

instance the present FIR was registered has turned hostile and

has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has not

identified the applicants as the persons who took part in the

alleged assault resulting in the death of Ranbir S/o Ramphool and

injury to himself. It is also submitted that till date, the

prosecution has examined only one witness, whereas they have

cited as many as 27 witnesses and it is likely that the trial of the

case will take a long time. It is also submitted that the applicants

are permanent resident of Delhi and there is no apprehension of

their absconding or tampering with the evidence in any manner.

Now only police officials are left to be examined and public

witness in regard to the identification of dead body are left to be

examined. It is thus submitted that the applicants, who have

clean incidents, are entitled to be released on bail.

3. Regarding the applicant, Parmit @ Pehlwan it is also stated

2009:DHC:302

Bail Application No.1480&1534/2008

Page 3 of 7

that he was hardly 17 years and 11 months old at the time of the

alleged incident and is a national player, who represented India in

Pakistan in a Football Match. It is further submitted that the

recovery of shirt is mere plantation. That T-shirt was taken by

the IO from his house and thereafter it was planted upon him

after putting blood stain on that T-shirt. No public person joined

at the time of recovery of T-shirt which falsify the prosecution

story. It is also submitted that there is no evidence against him

which connects him in this case. He is not known as Pehlwan and

was arrested on the basis of wrong identification.

4. Insofar as Sandeep @ Kale is concerned, it is stated that the

recovery of shirt from black colour pulser motor cycle no. DL 8S F

7367 which was parked in L-1 Liquour Godown, Jhajjar road,

Bahadurgarh near chungi, is mere plantation. That shirt was

taken by the IO from his house and thereafter, it was planted

upon him after putting blood stain on that shirt. It is pertinent to

mention that no public person joined at the time of recovery of

shirt which falsify the prosecution’s story. It is also stated that

recovery of pistol is mere plantation by the Police as nothing was

recovered from the possession or at the instance of the present

applicant. It is also stated th