DHARAMPAL@BABLOO@JUGAD v. STATE(GOVT.OF NOT OF DELHI)

1. The petitioner is one of the several accused persons facing trial in Sessions Case No.121/2017 arising out of First Information Report(FIR) No.01/2017 ofPolice Station Chanakya Puri,involving offences punishable under Sections 302/324/323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court, having framed the charge on the basis ofevidence which has been presented with the report of investigation under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.),is presently in the midst ofrecording evidence for prosecution. It appears that the material witnesses, they being Sahil (PW-3) and Aman (PW-7)have already been examined.The petitioner had moved an BAIL APPL 2325/2018 page 1 of[3] 2018:DHC:8430 application for release on bail before the trial court on the ground that the evidence which has been presented is replete with material contradictions taking which into account the trial would end in acquittal. The Additional Sessions Judge presiding over the trial, however,by order dated 13.07.2018 declined the said request for release on bail noting, inter alia, that the contradictions which were referred to would not result in the prosecution case being disbelieved. The petitioner has thereafter approached this court by application at hand seeking release on regular bail pointing out the said very contradictions.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. The record has been perused.

3. This courtfinds no error or infirmity in the order dated 13.07.2018 of the trial Judge. The contradictions which are sought to be pointed out, by themselves, actually do not make out a case to disbelieve the prosecution version,the evidence ofthe said witnesses being prima facie consistent with reference to complicity ofthe petitioner in the alleged crime. Pertinent to mention here thatthe evidence indicating thatthe petitioner had handed over the knife which was used in the crime to co-accused Veeru does supportthe case ofthe prosecution about he having shared the common intention. The injuries suffered by PW-7 may not have been mentioned formally at initial stage ofinvestigation. But,this by itself would not mean that the evidence abouthisinjuriesisto be excluded. Whetherornotthe CCTV coverage was available at the scene ofcrime would be a question offact that shall need to be addressed bythe trial court. IfCCTV cameras were actually coveringthe incident,nothing stopsthe petitioner orhisco-accusedfrom provingthe BAILAPPL 2325/2018 page2of[3] T same at the appropriate stage by producing the footage thereofin evidence. They would have the opportunity at the trial to prove,ifany,such material exists.

4. Nogood grounds have been shown forrelease ofthe petitioner on bail atthis stage.

5. The petition stands dismissed. (

6. This disposes ofthe pending application as well.