Rajesh v. State; Parminder@Parme v. State

1. By these petitions,petitioners seek bail in case FIR No.64/2015 under Section 302/34IPG registered atPS Narela,Delhi.

2. Above noted FIR was registered on the complaint ofSandeep Kumar who is the sole eye witness and in his deposition before the Court he stated that on 16^*^ January, 2015,around 9.30 to 10.00 PM he was present at his office at Plot No.1604, J.J. Colony,Pocket-A[6],Sector -11,Narela. When BAIL APPLN.1732/2018and 1733/2018 Page 1 of[3] 2018:DHC:8477 he left his office on his scooty and reached the Janta Flats, he received a phone call from Naveen Kumar asking about his whereabouts to which he replied that he was in Sonepat. From Janta flats he took his scooty to his house and when he reached the main gate somebody slapped him from behind and on seeing he was Naveen @ Sunny standing behind him. Since Naveen had slapped him, scuffle ensued. In the meantime, brother of the complainant namely Jitender came near the main gate ofthe house. A car was parked 10-15 paces ofthe main gate ofthe house and after de-boarding Samundar fired at Jitender. On receiving the gun shot injury Jitender fell down at the gate oftheir house. Sandeep Kumar further deposed that while gunshot injury was given to his brother,Rajesh was saying the words'"'"apna purana badla le le". After the incident Samunder and other accused ran away in the vehicle of Samunder,the person who has not been arrested till date.

3. Charge sheet inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPG has been filed against the four accused namely Rajesh, Parmender @ Parme,the two petitioners herein, Samunder and Rahul. Admittedly Rahul was not named as the fifth accused in the FIR in question and thus he was granted bail. As regards Naveen is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that despite the fact that Naveen's role was greater than that ofthe petitioners, since he was the one who checked up the location of the complainant, he has been granted bail and on parity both the petitioners seek bail.

4. Even as per the case ofthe complainant,Naveen, Rajesh,Parmender and Samunder were in the same car. The role assigned to Naveen that he BAIL APPLN.1732/2018and1733/2018 Page 2 of[3] had made a call in advance and when the complainantreached on hisscooty at hisresidence Naveen slapped him,obviously for befooling him,there was no overt act attributed to Naveen. As regards the petitioners are concenred no overt act except exhortation to Rajesh has been attributed that too after the firing incident.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody now for more than 3V[2] years,the main accused is yet to be arrested,and material witness has already been examined, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioners. It is,therefore,directed thatthe petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of?25,000/- each with one suretyofthelike amounteach,subjecttothe satisfaction ofthelearned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioners will not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court concerned and in case of change of residential address the same will be intimated tothe learned Trial Courtby way ofan affidavit.

6. Petitions are disposed of.

7. Order dasti.