Full Text
Translation output
Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1160/2012
PRADEEP KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Prakash Khatri with
Mr. Javed Alvi, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 1160/2012
PRADEEP KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Prakash Khatri with
Mr. Javed Alvi, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State along with Mr. Rajender Gautam, Inspector/SHO, PS
Alipur Mr. Sunil Mittal & Mr. Ravinder Chadha, Advocates for
Complainant/First Informant
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State along with Mr. Rajender Gautam, Inspector/SHO, PS
Alipur Mr. Sunil Mittal & Mr. Ravinder Chadha, Advocates for
Complainant/First Informant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 22.02.2013
At the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of leading defence evidence petitioner-accused is seeking bail in FIR No.52/2008 under Sections 302/34
IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at PS Alipur, Delhi, in order to effectively defend himself in the murder trial.
On 8th March, 2008 at about 11.15 pm. at Carnival Farm House, GTK
Road, Delhi ring ceremony of Mr. Ajay Mann was taking place and at that time Mr. Ajay Mann aged about 25 years (since deceased) along with other persons was dancing there and as per prosecution, petitioner along with his
2013:DHC:1014 Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 2 co-accused-Ravi Tyagi came there and started arguing with Mr. Ajay Mann.
Thereafter, three of them proceeded towards the parking of the farmhouse where petitioner and his co-accused had a brief conversation with each other and then petitioner purportedly took out a small double barrel gun from dickey of his car, which was taken by his co-accused, who fired from it on the chest of Mr. Ajay Mann and thereafter Mr. Ajay Mann had collapsed on the ground. It is disclosed by the respondent-State in the status report that petitioner had earlier sought bail thrice but on every occasion the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and while petitioner was on interim bail from 23rd June, 2011 to 26th June, 2011, a material witness Mr. Rajesh Maan turned hostile to the prosecution case and as per learned counsel for complainant/first informant it happened due to the threats extended by the accused party. However, now petitioner is seeking bail to enable him to effectively defend himself at the trial.
At the hearing of this application, it was put to the petitioner’s counsel as to how many witnesses and for what purpose petitioner intends to lead defence evidence. Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that petitioner will step into the witness box himself to assert that it was a case of accidental firing and two defence witnesses i.e. Sudhir Rana and Virender
Mann are the eye witnesses and common friends of the petitioner and the deceased, who will disclose the true facts. Reliance was placed by learned senior counsel for petitioner upon order dated 11th January, 2013 of my learned predecessor, who has candidly expressed in the aforesaid order that once the prosecution evidence is over there is no possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and the prima facie view expressed is that in such a case an accused deserves bail to have full opportunity to lead
Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 3 evidence in his defence.
At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant points out that in the aforesaid order of 11th January, 2013 it is also noted that oral direction to take a date in February, 2013 for defence evidence was given without hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant/first informant. To vehemently oppose this application for bail, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant relies upon orders of 2nd November, 2012 in Bail Application No. 4775/2012 titled Uday Hariburu @ Lapu v. The State of Jharkhand, order of 11th January, 2012 in Crl. Misc. No.M-33982/2011 Gurpreet Singh v. State of
Punjab, another order of 22nd May, 2012 in Crl. Misc. No. M-37878/2011
Ajay Kumar v. State of Punjab and order of 13th October, 2009 in Bail Application No.1005/2009 Satish Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to submit that in murder cases bail is declined when the trial is at the fag end. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant/first informant that a bare perusal of the various order-sheets of the trial court would reveal that most of the adjournments have been taken by accused persons and so on the ground of delayed trial or on account of petitioner being in custody for about last five years, he does not deserve bail as at this stage bail ought not to be given to enable petitioner to fabricate evidence in defence especially when no list of witnesses has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court.
Upon hearing and on bare perusal of trial court’s order of 2nd May, 2012 declining bail to petitioner, the status report filed by the respondent-
State, decision in Aman Gaur v. State 2012 (1) JCC 415 cited on behalf of the petitioner and the orders relied upon on behalf of complainant/first-
Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 4 informant, I find that gravity of the offence alleged persuades this Court not to grant bail to petitioner to enable him to lead evidence in defence because petitioner can lead evidence in his defence while in custody as in the first instance, he himself has to step into the witness box to depose. Thereafter, the other two witnesses which petitioner intends to get examined in his defence are his friends, who can always depose on their own before trial court. Certainly, petitioner does not deserve bail in order to tutor his witnesses.
In view of gravity of the offence and the circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner to enable him to lead evidence in his defence which he can otherwise lead while in custody.
This application is dismissed while making it clear that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on merits of the case at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge FEBRUARY 22, 2013 vn
At the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of leading defence evidence petitioner-accused is seeking bail in FIR No.52/2008 under Sections 302/34
IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at PS Alipur, Delhi, in order to effectively defend himself in the murder trial.
On 8th March, 2008 at about 11.15 pm. at Carnival Farm House, GTK
Road, Delhi ring ceremony of Mr. Ajay Mann was taking place and at that time Mr. Ajay Mann aged about 25 years (since deceased) along with other persons was dancing there and as per prosecution, petitioner along with his
2013:DHC:1014 Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 2 co-accused-Ravi Tyagi came there and started arguing with Mr. Ajay Mann.
Thereafter, three of them proceeded towards the parking of the farmhouse where petitioner and his co-accused had a brief conversation with each other and then petitioner purportedly took out a small double barrel gun from dickey of his car, which was taken by his co-accused, who fired from it on the chest of Mr. Ajay Mann and thereafter Mr. Ajay Mann had collapsed on the ground. It is disclosed by the respondent-State in the status report that petitioner had earlier sought bail thrice but on every occasion the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and while petitioner was on interim bail from 23rd June, 2011 to 26th June, 2011, a material witness Mr. Rajesh Maan turned hostile to the prosecution case and as per learned counsel for complainant/first informant it happened due to the threats extended by the accused party. However, now petitioner is seeking bail to enable him to effectively defend himself at the trial.
At the hearing of this application, it was put to the petitioner’s counsel as to how many witnesses and for what purpose petitioner intends to lead defence evidence. Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that petitioner will step into the witness box himself to assert that it was a case of accidental firing and two defence witnesses i.e. Sudhir Rana and Virender
Mann are the eye witnesses and common friends of the petitioner and the deceased, who will disclose the true facts. Reliance was placed by learned senior counsel for petitioner upon order dated 11th January, 2013 of my learned predecessor, who has candidly expressed in the aforesaid order that once the prosecution evidence is over there is no possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and the prima facie view expressed is that in such a case an accused deserves bail to have full opportunity to lead
Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 3 evidence in his defence.
At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant points out that in the aforesaid order of 11th January, 2013 it is also noted that oral direction to take a date in February, 2013 for defence evidence was given without hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant/first informant. To vehemently oppose this application for bail, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant relies upon orders of 2nd November, 2012 in Bail Application No. 4775/2012 titled Uday Hariburu @ Lapu v. The State of Jharkhand, order of 11th January, 2012 in Crl. Misc. No.M-33982/2011 Gurpreet Singh v. State of
Punjab, another order of 22nd May, 2012 in Crl. Misc. No. M-37878/2011
Ajay Kumar v. State of Punjab and order of 13th October, 2009 in Bail Application No.1005/2009 Satish Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to submit that in murder cases bail is declined when the trial is at the fag end. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant/first informant that a bare perusal of the various order-sheets of the trial court would reveal that most of the adjournments have been taken by accused persons and so on the ground of delayed trial or on account of petitioner being in custody for about last five years, he does not deserve bail as at this stage bail ought not to be given to enable petitioner to fabricate evidence in defence especially when no list of witnesses has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court.
Upon hearing and on bare perusal of trial court’s order of 2nd May, 2012 declining bail to petitioner, the status report filed by the respondent-
State, decision in Aman Gaur v. State 2012 (1) JCC 415 cited on behalf of the petitioner and the orders relied upon on behalf of complainant/first-
Bail Appln. No.1160/2012 Page 4 informant, I find that gravity of the offence alleged persuades this Court not to grant bail to petitioner to enable him to lead evidence in defence because petitioner can lead evidence in his defence while in custody as in the first instance, he himself has to step into the witness box to depose. Thereafter, the other two witnesses which petitioner intends to get examined in his defence are his friends, who can always depose on their own before trial court. Certainly, petitioner does not deserve bail in order to tutor his witnesses.
In view of gravity of the offence and the circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner to enable him to lead evidence in his defence which he can otherwise lead while in custody.
This application is dismissed while making it clear that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on merits of the case at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge FEBRUARY 22, 2013 vn
JUDGMENT