$~33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

BAIL APPLN. 260/2022

SHEBU

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State

(through VC) with SI Vinit Kumar PS

Harsh Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

TALWANT SINGH, J.:

1. The petitioner has prayed for his regular bail in case FIR No.

425/2017, under Section 302/365/506/34 IPC registered with PS Harsh

Vihar and he is stated to be in Judicial Custody since 20.10.2017.

1.2

The petitioner has submitted that according to the FIR, police station

Harsh Vihar had received an information about a dead body lying near

Mandoli Shukra Bazar, Delhi-110093. The ASI Illa Khan was deputed to

the spot to conduct the initial investigation. Crime team was also called at

the spot. One brick with mark SSB, one toilet seat and stones having blood

stains were found near the spot and at the instance of ASI Illa Khan, case

under Section 302 IPC was registered. The present accused was arrested on

20.10.2017, his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

was recorded in which he is alleged to have admitted his role in commission

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001918

of the offence and he had stated that he, alongwith Mukin, caught hold of

the deceased and thereafter accused Golu assaulted the deceased with brick

and later on the present petitioner also assaulted him with the same brick and

lastly Mukin assaulted the deceased with stone and toilet seat.

1.3

The police did not seize these articles at the spot but they were seized

at the police station and then they were sent to FSL to ascertain whether the

blood found on the said articles was of the deceased or not but opinion of the

finger print expert has not been sought to connect these articles of offence

with the present petitioner. The police was duty bound to take finger prints

of the present petitioner and to send them to FSL to match with the finger

prints found on the offence objects. In the FIR it is mentioned that the brick

found near dead body has mark of SSB on it but the brick seized by the

police has no such marking. In the disclosure statement, the petitioner had

stated that he had changed his clothes which he was wearing at the time of

incident but on the other hand the police seized his clothes which he was

wearing on 20.10.2017 and it was shown that blood stains were there on the

said clothes. As per the petitioner, the police had planted those clothes. As

the inscription on the seized shirt was not given in the disclosure statement.

1.4

It is further submitted that the version of the last seen witness,

namely, Akash is not trustworthy as he stated to have seen Golu and his

associates taking away the deceased forcibly and as per him, he followed

them, those people threatened him of dire consequences but he did not

disclose these facts to family members of the deceased or to the police,

hence his statement is not reliable. No authentic proof has been given by

this witness to prove that he was with the deceased on the fateful night.

Statement of this witness was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This

witness neither came to the spot nor got his statement recorded at the spot

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001918

but the statement was recorded on 20.10.2017, after lodging of the FIR.

1.5

During recording of his evidence before Court on 18.09.2018, PW

Akash could not disclose the correct date of the incident and on cross

question he remained silent, hence the investigation of this case is tainted

and benefit of doubt goes to the petitioner. There is no proof of as to what

was the blood group of the petitioner and the deceased and the police has

failed to ascertain the same. There is a long list of witnesses and because of

Covid, ther