Rakesh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.247/2014 registered under Section 302/34 IPG at PS Kanjhawala. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was arrested on 27^ June, 2014 inthe above said case. As the charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated time of 90 days as required under Section 167 Cr.P.C., the petitioner thereafter applied for bail which was granted by the MM by order dated 27^*^ September, 2014. The said order was challenged by 2015:DHC:10598 H the State by fiUng of the Revision Petition. The Revisional Court has come tothe conclusion that the charge-sheet was filed on90^^ day from the date of the arrest ofthe petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner left with no other option but to surrender himself In the present case, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has examined total 18 witnesses including the family members, eye-witnesses as well as the complainant. His contention is that none of the said witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. Counsel in support of his submissions has referred the statement of the complainant, i.e. Jai Singh (PW-13) who is the son of the deceased. He deposed before the learned Trial Court that he does not know the date and month but it was one or one and a half year back, a quarrel had taken place between his father deceased Ram Singh Pradhan with some other persons whom he did not know. Similar is the statement of PW-12 Amit as well as PW-11 Naveen. Apart from the statements made by the said three PWs, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred the statement of PW-15 Dr.Vivek Rawat who in his cross-examination has deposed that it is correct that due to old age, a person may develop fatty liver which may lead to death of a person and it is also correct that blunt injury can happen to a person even ifhe falls on surface. The bail application is opposed by the learned APP for the State who states that the matter is coming up before the learned Trial Court on 26^^ March, 2015 for remaining evidence ofthe prosecution. The said statements may be recorded accordingly by the learned Trial Court. However, as far as the prayer made in the present application is concerned, without going into the merits of the case and without expressing any opinion, the same is granted. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and further subject to the following conditions (v) that the petitioner will furnish to the learned Trial Court his current address and contact number and will not shift from the said address or change the contact number without prior permission ofthe learned Trial Court; (vi) the petitioner will appear on each and every date before the learned Trial Court; (vii) the petitioner will not interfere with the fair progress ofthe trial and will also not approach the witnesses. (viii) that the petitioner will surrender his passport before the learned Trial Court, if already not deposited and will not leave India without prior permission ofthe Court. In case of violation of any of the conditions above, it will be open to the State to apply for cancellation ofthe bail. The application is accordingly disposed of. Dasti, under the signatures ofthe Court Master. MARCH 18,2015/ka

JUDGMENT