Full Text
Translation output
#39
% 11.08.2011
Present: Mr.Rajendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent/State with 10 Inspector
Om Singh, SHO, P.S. Kalyan Puri.
+Crl.M.A.No. 9446/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. 1116/2011
Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. She has filed the reply under the signatures of SHO, P.S. Kalyan Puri, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because of an old rivalry regarding cable business with the complainant. He submits that as per the FIR, occurrence took place on 16'" July, 2011 at 8.30 p.m. at Trilokpuri whereas at that time, the petitioner was at 'Shani Mandir', Noida, Sector 14. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the copies of CCTV footage of the said 'Mandir' dated 16"" July, 2011 from 8.38 p.m. onwards wherein the face of the petitioner is visible. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner was present at 'Shani l^andir' at Noida at 8.38 p.m. on 16"" July, 2011, his presence at the spot of occurrence is highly improbable. He further submits that the co-accused Rishi Raj and Rahul Tej Rana have already been granted benefit of bail vide order of this court dated 08""
August, 2011.
2011:DHC:7144
Learned APP, on the contrary, has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application. She submits that the petitioner along with others, came armed at the spot of occurrence and he inflicted knife injury on the person of Chander Shekhar when he tried to save the complainant Yogesh Kumar, who was fired on by co-accused Amit. It is submitted that the petitioner is absconding and avoiding to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of knife. Thus, she presses for dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and he is claimed to have inflicted knife injury on the person of Chander Shekhar. The knife is yet to be recovered, therefore, taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the concerned court.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2011 akb
2011:DHC:7144
% 11.08.2011
Present: Mr.Rajendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the respondent/State with 10 Inspector
Om Singh, SHO, P.S. Kalyan Puri.
+Crl.M.A.No. 9446/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. 1116/2011
Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. She has filed the reply under the signatures of SHO, P.S. Kalyan Puri, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because of an old rivalry regarding cable business with the complainant. He submits that as per the FIR, occurrence took place on 16'" July, 2011 at 8.30 p.m. at Trilokpuri whereas at that time, the petitioner was at 'Shani Mandir', Noida, Sector 14. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the copies of CCTV footage of the said 'Mandir' dated 16"" July, 2011 from 8.38 p.m. onwards wherein the face of the petitioner is visible. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner was present at 'Shani l^andir' at Noida at 8.38 p.m. on 16"" July, 2011, his presence at the spot of occurrence is highly improbable. He further submits that the co-accused Rishi Raj and Rahul Tej Rana have already been granted benefit of bail vide order of this court dated 08""
August, 2011.
2011:DHC:7144
Learned APP, on the contrary, has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application. She submits that the petitioner along with others, came armed at the spot of occurrence and he inflicted knife injury on the person of Chander Shekhar when he tried to save the complainant Yogesh Kumar, who was fired on by co-accused Amit. It is submitted that the petitioner is absconding and avoiding to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of knife. Thus, she presses for dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and he is claimed to have inflicted knife injury on the person of Chander Shekhar. The knife is yet to be recovered, therefore, taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the concerned court.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2011 akb
2011:DHC:7144
JUDGMENT