Full Text
Translation output
$.....42 & 43 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1790/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos.14751-52/2013
DESH RAJ@ DESHU
Through:
BAIL APPLN. 1790/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos.14751-52/2013
DESH RAJ@ DESHU
Through:
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate ..... Respondent
· Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with Inspector Virender
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate ..... Respondent
· Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with Inspector Virender
BAIL APPLN. 1792/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos.14754-55/2013
VINOD KUMAR @ GOLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate
VINOD KUMAR @ GOLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Through:
Through:
CORAM: ..... Respondent Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State with Inspector Virender
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.09.2013 In the above captioned two applications, petitioners seek bail in
FIR No. 356/2007, under Sections 302/120B of the IPC, police station
Hauz Khas, New Delhi on the ground that they are in custody for last 5Y2 years and because evidence ofmaterial witnesses has been recorded.
Bail Application No.1790/2013 Bail Application No.1792/2013
Page 1 \ .J.J.J.J 2013:DHC:7660 At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had contended that petitioners' co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal have been granted bail and no role has been attributed to petitioners. It is submitted by petitioners' counsel that petitioners are innocent and they deserve bail, as their co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal have been already granted bail.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State opposes these applications and submits that out of fifty seven witnesses, deposition of forty seven witnesses have been already recorded and petitioners were instrumental in facilitating commission of crime in question and that petitioner- Desh Raj had refused to participate in the test identification parade and deposition of PW-1 & PW-2 sufficiently incriminates petitioners whose case is not at par with their co-accused-
Ashok Jain and Rishipal and so, they do not deserve bail.
Upon hearing both sides, on perusal ofthe FIR ofthis case and trial court's order of 30th April, 2013 declining bail to petitioners and the material on record, I find that that bail has been granted to co-accused
Ashok Jain and Rishipal upon considering the evidence on record and because they had purportedly conspired with the main accused in the commission of crime in question, whereas an active role of surrounding the deceased has been attributed to petitioners.
Trial court vide order of 30th April, 2013 declines bail to petitioners while granting bail to co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal by referring to deposition of PW-1 & PW-2. It will not be appropriate for this Court to pre-judge the evidence recorded. Since recording ofprosecution evidence is at its fag-end and the next date of hearing is said to be 16th November, Bail Application No.1790j2013
Page2 J.J.J.J 2013 and four witnesses are already summoned, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to not to grant bail to petitioners in view of the role attributed to them. However, since petitioners are already in custody for 5Y2 years, therefore, let the trial court expedite recording of the evidence and endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the . J date already fixed.
It is made clear that ifthe trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, then petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for bail afresh.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 r Bail Application No.1790/2013
SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3 J.J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.09.2013 In the above captioned two applications, petitioners seek bail in
FIR No. 356/2007, under Sections 302/120B of the IPC, police station
Hauz Khas, New Delhi on the ground that they are in custody for last 5Y2 years and because evidence ofmaterial witnesses has been recorded.
Bail Application No.1790/2013 Bail Application No.1792/2013
Page 1 \ .J.J.J.J 2013:DHC:7660 At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had contended that petitioners' co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal have been granted bail and no role has been attributed to petitioners. It is submitted by petitioners' counsel that petitioners are innocent and they deserve bail, as their co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal have been already granted bail.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State opposes these applications and submits that out of fifty seven witnesses, deposition of forty seven witnesses have been already recorded and petitioners were instrumental in facilitating commission of crime in question and that petitioner- Desh Raj had refused to participate in the test identification parade and deposition of PW-1 & PW-2 sufficiently incriminates petitioners whose case is not at par with their co-accused-
Ashok Jain and Rishipal and so, they do not deserve bail.
Upon hearing both sides, on perusal ofthe FIR ofthis case and trial court's order of 30th April, 2013 declining bail to petitioners and the material on record, I find that that bail has been granted to co-accused
Ashok Jain and Rishipal upon considering the evidence on record and because they had purportedly conspired with the main accused in the commission of crime in question, whereas an active role of surrounding the deceased has been attributed to petitioners.
Trial court vide order of 30th April, 2013 declines bail to petitioners while granting bail to co-accused Ashok Jain and Rishipal by referring to deposition of PW-1 & PW-2. It will not be appropriate for this Court to pre-judge the evidence recorded. Since recording ofprosecution evidence is at its fag-end and the next date of hearing is said to be 16th November, Bail Application No.1790j2013
Page2 J.J.J.J 2013 and four witnesses are already summoned, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to not to grant bail to petitioners in view of the role attributed to them. However, since petitioners are already in custody for 5Y2 years, therefore, let the trial court expedite recording of the evidence and endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the . J date already fixed.
It is made clear that ifthe trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, then petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for bail afresh.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 r Bail Application No.1790/2013
SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3 J.J
JUDGMENT