Full Text
Translation output
$-11 & 12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 565/2015
PARMOD PAL
Petitioner
Through Mr. H. K. Singh, Adv
BAIL APPLN. 565/2015
PARMOD PAL
Petitioner
Through Mr. H. K. Singh, Adv
VERSUS
STATE (NOT OF DELHI)
Through Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State along with SI Khajan Singh.
Through Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State along with SI Khajan Singh.
BAIL APPLN. 725/2015
DEVI RAM
DEVI RAM
WITH
Petitioner
Through Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate
Through Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NOT OF DELHI
Through Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State along with SI Khajan Singh.
Through Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State along with SI Khajan Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
07.07.2015 Status report has been filed by the State. The present FIR has been registered under Section 394/397/120B of the IPG. There were four eye witnesses of the incident of whom Kishori La! was the injured. Learned counsel for petitioner Devi Ram submits that though
Devi Ram has not been identified in the court proceedings and
2015:DHC:10697 r- although Pankaj had identified him in the TIP, but he had not identified him in Court. Eye witness Rajender had also refused to identify Devi Ram. No recovery has been effected from him.
On behalf of petitioner Parmod Pal it is pointed out that the eye witnesses have not identified him; he was never put to TIP. He was not caught at the spot. Identification for the first time in the Court is no identification in the eye of law.
On behalf of both the petitioners, it has further been pointed out that all material witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses remain to be examined. This is a clear case where the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of acquittal and no purpose would be served in keeping them further incarcerated.
Status report has been filed. Along with the status report statement of only two eye-witnesses namely Pankaj Kumar and
Kishori Lai have been filed. Panlcaj Kumar in the TIP proceedings had identified Devi Ram; in Court he had not identified him; Other eye witness Kishori Lai has however, identified both the petitioners i.e. Devi Ram and Pramod Pal.
As per the eye witness account of Kishori Lai (who was also an injured in this case) on the fateful day while he was present in the office on the second floor, Chuna Mandi Pahar Ganj, Delhi along with Rajender Prasad and Pankaj; Pankaj who had brought payment from the market was standing near the door; door was bolted; it was knocked, on opening the door persons entered into the room and they were having weapons and a bag. Sonu fired upon Kishori Lai; alarm was raised. Sonu and his associates snatched the bundle of Rs. 1.5
3>^ Lac; they tried to run away; on alarm having been raised Sonu was apprehended at the spot. Injured Kishori Lai received grievous injuries. The weapon (a pistol) was also recovered from Sonu. As noted supra, Kishori Lai has identified both the petitioners. From the petitioner, Pramod Pal the vehicle i.e. a Scorpio car in which offenders had come to the spot was also recovered.
The trial is almost at the stage of conclusion. Keeping in view
^ the gravity ofoffence, no ground is made out for bail at this stage.
Both the applications are dismissed.
Needless to state that the observations made in this order shall not affect the final decision on the merits of the case., INDERMEET KAUR, J
JULY 07, 2015 ndn
07.07.2015 Status report has been filed by the State. The present FIR has been registered under Section 394/397/120B of the IPG. There were four eye witnesses of the incident of whom Kishori La! was the injured. Learned counsel for petitioner Devi Ram submits that though
Devi Ram has not been identified in the court proceedings and
2015:DHC:10697 r- although Pankaj had identified him in the TIP, but he had not identified him in Court. Eye witness Rajender had also refused to identify Devi Ram. No recovery has been effected from him.
On behalf of petitioner Parmod Pal it is pointed out that the eye witnesses have not identified him; he was never put to TIP. He was not caught at the spot. Identification for the first time in the Court is no identification in the eye of law.
On behalf of both the petitioners, it has further been pointed out that all material witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses remain to be examined. This is a clear case where the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of acquittal and no purpose would be served in keeping them further incarcerated.
Status report has been filed. Along with the status report statement of only two eye-witnesses namely Pankaj Kumar and
Kishori Lai have been filed. Panlcaj Kumar in the TIP proceedings had identified Devi Ram; in Court he had not identified him; Other eye witness Kishori Lai has however, identified both the petitioners i.e. Devi Ram and Pramod Pal.
As per the eye witness account of Kishori Lai (who was also an injured in this case) on the fateful day while he was present in the office on the second floor, Chuna Mandi Pahar Ganj, Delhi along with Rajender Prasad and Pankaj; Pankaj who had brought payment from the market was standing near the door; door was bolted; it was knocked, on opening the door persons entered into the room and they were having weapons and a bag. Sonu fired upon Kishori Lai; alarm was raised. Sonu and his associates snatched the bundle of Rs. 1.5
3>^ Lac; they tried to run away; on alarm having been raised Sonu was apprehended at the spot. Injured Kishori Lai received grievous injuries. The weapon (a pistol) was also recovered from Sonu. As noted supra, Kishori Lai has identified both the petitioners. From the petitioner, Pramod Pal the vehicle i.e. a Scorpio car in which offenders had come to the spot was also recovered.
The trial is almost at the stage of conclusion. Keeping in view
^ the gravity ofoffence, no ground is made out for bail at this stage.
Both the applications are dismissed.
Needless to state that the observations made in this order shall not affect the final decision on the merits of the case., INDERMEET KAUR, J
JULY 07, 2015 ndn
JUDGMENT