Ombir v. State of Delhi

1. The present petition|uhier< iSection 439 of Code of Criminal ii n r Procedure.1973(hereinafterfefemed^to asthe Cr.P.O.),>has been filed i. 7 by the petitioner for,.seekingfbaiifiM;a case, registered as FIR NO. 263/2014 under5^'S'eStiMs^^tei%'4^5f' at Police Station Neb Sarai,'DelhL>X'^'^^~'='-^^^^ >

2. The prosecutiohXas5i|r^|eftrxi^on the statement of one Dheeraj Singh, who stated in his complaint that on 30.03.2014, when he came out from his house,he saw that his neighbor-Ombir,who is a supplier of water was quarrelling over water and he alongwith his brother-in-laws, namely, Sudhir and Anand were quarrelling with his father. When he intervened,Sudhir and Anand caught hold ofhim and Ombir (petitioner herein) took out a razor from his pocket and attacked with the same upon his neck. As a result thereof,he sustained Bail Appl.No.871/2016 Page 1 of[5] 2016:DHC:8253 VA injury on his neck and ear. His elder brother Vikram Singh also sustained injury. PCR was called and his brother Vikram Singh and the petitioner - Ombir were taken to Trauma Centre AIIMS for treatment.

3. Investigation started. Statements ofthe witnesses were recorded and after completion ofthe investigation, the petitioner and other coaccused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 ofIPG.Accordingly,on 2^.0:l,v2Ql;6pcharge sheet wasfiled againstthe petitioner and othep^cbraccuseSl tThe^So.TaccUsed ofthe present case have been grarited>hail: The petitioner appliedvfof^bail on the ground of parity with co-aGeils,edSb;e& leame'd Adciitional Session Judge,whichiwas deciined^dsa^etothef co-accuseS--'wele assigned the I I role of ciatching hold of therdoihpiainant and it was the petitioner [| _ i herein,who was attributed the|r6fe(6j|inflicting razorinjuries upon the,. n I complainant. ^9. m r[7]

4. Mr.Kddar<Vaday,learned counselfrfor^hi&^e^itioner contended thatthe bail appfiGation''&arlie£ffle^iyitHe,-^ before this Court was dismissed on 22.05Y20f£43ht|he^igrom that the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence and the complainant/injured was not examined. It is further contended on behalf ofthe petitioner that the complainant/injured -Dheeraj Singh(PW-4)in the present case has since been examined and in his deposition he has deposed that "The accused persons assaulted me with blade on my neck, ear and left shoulder. I cannot tell as to which one ofthe accused had caused blade blow on me".It is urged thatthe petitioner is injudicial custody Bail Appl.No.871/2016 Page2of[5] since 31.03.2014 and the complainant has not attributed any specific role to the petitioner and the other co-accused persons have already been released on bail, therefore,the petitioner be also released on bail on partity with the other co-accused.

5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that all the material witnesses including the injured/complainant have been examined and there is no question oftampering with the prosecution evidence. Moreover, thejiharge-sheet^in this case has already been filed and besides thi§pt?is/ufged that(jthe^|)etillpner is 32 years ofage and sole bread'earner- for hisfJamily consistmgi.of,-his wife and two minor childffen,«thereforeMhd:fpetiti0nef.-bught to'^be,.granted bail in the present case offthe ground^ofpln't^##i

6. Mr.' Rajat Katyal, leamedlAdditional Public Prosecutor for the ii w State submitted that the casbipfithemetitioner is on a different footing and the petitioner ca'nhotblaiiilimariwLwith^the'other cofaccused,as the other co-accused'spersons were assigned.the5role5'otfcatching hold of the complainant;^hbwefery.thel'petition'ersids,,attributed the role of inflicting injury by raz6f-at3lri^i'tah:pait''of the body of the victim. Moreover,the weapon ofoffence, i.e., razor has been recovered from the petitioner. It is further contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the petitioner is charged with a heinous crime and in the facts ofthe present case,he should not be enlarged on bail.

7. The submissions and counter submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned Additional Public Bail AppI.No.871/2016 Page3of[5] Jj Prosecutor for the State have been heard and this Court has also perused the material placed on record.

8. After considering the contents ofthe present petition as well as the status report filed on record,the admitted facts ofthe case are that the petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2014 and the other co-accused persons have already been released on bail; charge sheet in this case has been filed and the complainant in the present case has already been examined. This ^gujfcrftarthei:, observes that though the complainant, in his^deppsifionrhas de&ose,a that the accused persons had assaulted.Mm^jyith"blade orFhts neck,eaCand Ibft shoulder,but he carmot tell,as tplwhich Qn#ofvtheiaceuSed had caused,blade blow on i imm 'i'

9. It is also admitted caseVofthe State that the other co-accused in 11 j the present case are on bailfahdlm'^dieipresentfacts and/circumstances of the else, deposition of the complamant/mjujeft^?.m4he considered opmiqmofrthis Court,it will be unjust to reach tb<theicdnclusion3Ghis,l^age'that''it was the petitioner only,who had inflicted'thesiblj^djjmj complainant.However, the trial is in progress and only the lO/ASI Makhan Singh is to be examined. This Court further observes the MLC of the injured/complainant wherein the treating doctor has opined with regard to the nature ofinjuries being'Simple'.

10. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court take note ofthe facts that the co-accused-namely, Mr. Sudhir and Anand in the present case have already been granted bail; the BailAppl.No.871/2016 Page 4of[5] n petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2010[4] and charge sheet in the present case has already been filed,therefore,the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Ombir in the present case subjectto his furnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- with two sureties ofthe like amount,to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court.

12. Before parting,with the,.order, this-court would like to place it,f\8 3- Is i ii 6" I -81% on record by way ofi"abxmdant cautioiftnat whatever has been stated hereinabovejh^this^ordeh[fe^^n^sp,said ofily-i.rors the purpose of A' 'i'Y % M'. disposing/of,1:116 prayer%d¥fibaili|paS^ by the^jfetiti'oner. Nothing,• / J X. f, contamed|m this order sna^|D|^e9n^ as expression oi a rinal opinion on any ofthe issuesjofifdct'or law arising for decision in the A j J. fi-, f,- U ^5,■( O (J VQ ri>K o case whidfi shall naturally^ihaye^to^M^done by the Trial (Dourt seized of

13. With afelesa:m;;direetiQny;hg,,pre'sent%aik% as well as pendingapplicatioiis'iiSl'edyp.y^epetilion^jSt'anddispc^edo:^Dasti. P-sIteW, j MAY 24,2016 pkb