Bail.Appln. No.1271/2014 Page 1 of 14

$~13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

BAIL APPLN. 1271/2014

GOPAL KRISHAN AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through :

Mr.Karan Pal Singh, Adv.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through :

Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, APP for the

State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

%

02.09.2014

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL)

1. The Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.356/2007 under Section

120-B read with Section 302 IPC, PS Hauz Qazi pending before the Court of

Learned Addl. Session Judge-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

2. After dismissal of the bail application by learned Addl. Session Judge,

Delhi vide order dated 19.05.2014, the Petitioner has again approached this

Court for seeking bail in the above noted case on the ground that the

Petitioner had been in custody for the last about seven years and material

witnesses in the case have already been examined. Learned counsel for the

Petitioner has submitted that the testimony of material witnesses placed on

record would reveal that the Petitioner, who had been booked for conspiracy

2014:DHC:4338

Bail.Appln. No.1271/2014 Page 2 of 14

to commit murder, cannot be convicted on the basis of said material.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that initially the bail

granted to the Petitioner by this Court was cancelled by Supreme Court but

that was before the stage of framing of charge. Now the material witnesses

have been examined. The health condition of the Petitioner is not good and

he requires continuous medical treatment. Further, the co-accused Ashok

Jain and Rishi Pal have already been enlarged on bail on 30.04.2013 and on

parity, the Petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. It has been further

submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has deep

roots in the society and he has never abused the liberty whenever he was

released on interim bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that despite

directions by this Court for speedy trial, as on date twenty-three witnesses

are yet to be examined, which is likely to take long time and this in itself is a

ground to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

has placed reliance on Dr.Mrs.Nupur Talwar v. CBI in Special Leave to

Appeal (Cri). No.4738/2012 decided on 13.08.2012, Nand Lal v. State of

Delhi 1994 (2) RCR (Cri) 345, Pankaj v. State of Haryana 1998 (3) RCR

(Cri) 219, and Manoj Kumar v. CBI 2005 (1) RCR (Cri) 265 in support of

his contentions.

3. On behalf of State, the plea of the Petitioner to be released on bail is

strongly opposed. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the

Petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and he cannot claim parity with co-

accused Ashok Jain and Rishi Pal for the reason that while granting bail to

them, prayer of the Petitioner for release on bail was declined. Rather the

direction was given to expedite the trial within three months. It is further

submitted by learned APP for the State that the trial has not been completed

2014:DHC:4338

Bail.Appln. No.1271/2014 Page 3 of 14

within specified period as one of the accused Desraj had jumped the bail.

Learned APP for the State has further submitted that every effort is being

made to conclude the trial at the earliest and there is every possibility that

the prosecution evidence would be concluded within four months.

Regarding the health condition of the Petitioner, it has been submitted that

he is being regularly taken to the hospital and is being provided the

necessary medical treatment, hence on this ground also, the Petitioner

cannot be enlarged on bail.

4