Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN 2281/2015
RAHUL
Petitioner
Through Mr Varun Tyagi, Mr Bharat Gupta and Mr
Gurbhi Mehta, Advs.
BAIL APPLN 2281/2015
RAHUL
Petitioner
Through Mr Varun Tyagi, Mr Bharat Gupta and Mr
Gurbhi Mehta, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE (NOT GOVT. OF DELHI) OF DLEHI Respondent
Through Mr Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Through Mr Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
03.03.2016 By way of this application under Section 439 of Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 325/2013 under Sections 302/394/397/34 of IPG registered at Police
Station Seemapuri, Delhi.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of suspicion. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The co-accused Vishal was released on bail by this Court whereas co-accused Hitesh was granted bail by the Sessions
Court. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused Vishal and Hitesh. The Trial Court dismissed the application ofthe petitioner on the ground that the recovery of weapon of offence has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. However, as per seizure memo, the recovery was allegedly effected at the instance of all the accused persons. No recovery of allegedstolenmobile phone or moneyhas taken place. It is alleged by prosecution that the petitioner used the mobile phone of deceased by inserting the sim card and that at best attracts the provisions of Section 411 IPC. The petitioner is incustody since 07.07.2013 as such he be released on bail.
The application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on theground thatthepetitioner cannot claim parity withco-accused who have been released on bail as brother of co-accused Ghanshyam Saini produced the mobile phone ofthe deceased on which IMIE No.352858057702719 was mentioned. The copy ofregister ofthe shop from
2016:DHC:8213 where the petitioner purchased the sim number 9560585879 was seized. The certificate of
CDR of alleged mobile number of deceased 9899249009 and mobile number of accused were received and on analyzing them it was revealed that after crime, the robbed phone of deceased was inpossession ofthepetitioner. Outof 30witnesses, 20 witnesses have already beenexamined as suchthe petitioner does notdeserve to be released on bail.
As per the prosecution case, on 30.06.2013 an information vide DD No.34A was received at Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi regarding one person lying unconscious and bleeding. Atthespot there was considerable amount of blood lying ontheroad and one cycle having blood was also lying there. The injured was taken to GTB hospital by the PGR van.
The MLC of the injured was collected where the victim was declared 'brought dead'. On inspection of the body of deceased, four inch sharp edged wound was found as such a case under Section 302 ofIPG was registered.
During the course of investigation, deceased was identified as Ramesh Ghand Saini, Statements of family members of the deceased were recorded. Theystated thatmobile phone number 9899249009 and Rs.400/- which the deceased was having at the time of leaving the house were found missing. Hence, Sections 394/397 IPG were added in the case. On
07.07.2013, the petitioner alongwith Vishal and Hitesh were arrested on the basis of a secret information. At the instance of accused persons ustra (weapon of offence) was recovered.
The petitioner had disclosed that he used the mobile phone of the deceased by inserting sim number 9560585879 and later on phone was lost. Gertified copy of the GDR of robbed mobile of the deceased and mobile number of the accused revealed that after the crime, the robbed phone of the deceased was in possession of the petitioner. The case is based on circumstantial evidence andthis is oneofthe important evidence quathe petitioner. Although it was fairly conceded by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of all the accused persons but the petitioner cannot claim parity with the remaining co-accused who have been released on bail because qua this accused there is another incriminating circumstance which isusage ofrobbed mobile phone ofthe deceased in possession ofthe petitioner. For which no explanation has been given by him.
That being so, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I do not deem it appropriate to release thepetitioner onbail.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression ofopinion on merits ofthe case.
MARCH 03, IQXeird itrwrl- SUNITA GtlPTA, J
03.03.2016 By way of this application under Section 439 of Cr.PC, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 325/2013 under Sections 302/394/397/34 of IPG registered at Police
Station Seemapuri, Delhi.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of suspicion. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The co-accused Vishal was released on bail by this Court whereas co-accused Hitesh was granted bail by the Sessions
Court. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused Vishal and Hitesh. The Trial Court dismissed the application ofthe petitioner on the ground that the recovery of weapon of offence has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. However, as per seizure memo, the recovery was allegedly effected at the instance of all the accused persons. No recovery of allegedstolenmobile phone or moneyhas taken place. It is alleged by prosecution that the petitioner used the mobile phone of deceased by inserting the sim card and that at best attracts the provisions of Section 411 IPC. The petitioner is incustody since 07.07.2013 as such he be released on bail.
The application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on theground thatthepetitioner cannot claim parity withco-accused who have been released on bail as brother of co-accused Ghanshyam Saini produced the mobile phone ofthe deceased on which IMIE No.352858057702719 was mentioned. The copy ofregister ofthe shop from
2016:DHC:8213 where the petitioner purchased the sim number 9560585879 was seized. The certificate of
CDR of alleged mobile number of deceased 9899249009 and mobile number of accused were received and on analyzing them it was revealed that after crime, the robbed phone of deceased was inpossession ofthepetitioner. Outof 30witnesses, 20 witnesses have already beenexamined as suchthe petitioner does notdeserve to be released on bail.
As per the prosecution case, on 30.06.2013 an information vide DD No.34A was received at Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi regarding one person lying unconscious and bleeding. Atthespot there was considerable amount of blood lying ontheroad and one cycle having blood was also lying there. The injured was taken to GTB hospital by the PGR van.
The MLC of the injured was collected where the victim was declared 'brought dead'. On inspection of the body of deceased, four inch sharp edged wound was found as such a case under Section 302 ofIPG was registered.
During the course of investigation, deceased was identified as Ramesh Ghand Saini, Statements of family members of the deceased were recorded. Theystated thatmobile phone number 9899249009 and Rs.400/- which the deceased was having at the time of leaving the house were found missing. Hence, Sections 394/397 IPG were added in the case. On
07.07.2013, the petitioner alongwith Vishal and Hitesh were arrested on the basis of a secret information. At the instance of accused persons ustra (weapon of offence) was recovered.
The petitioner had disclosed that he used the mobile phone of the deceased by inserting sim number 9560585879 and later on phone was lost. Gertified copy of the GDR of robbed mobile of the deceased and mobile number of the accused revealed that after the crime, the robbed phone of the deceased was in possession of the petitioner. The case is based on circumstantial evidence andthis is oneofthe important evidence quathe petitioner. Although it was fairly conceded by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of all the accused persons but the petitioner cannot claim parity with the remaining co-accused who have been released on bail because qua this accused there is another incriminating circumstance which isusage ofrobbed mobile phone ofthe deceased in possession ofthe petitioner. For which no explanation has been given by him.
That being so, keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I do not deem it appropriate to release thepetitioner onbail.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression ofopinion on merits ofthe case.
MARCH 03, IQXeird itrwrl- SUNITA GtlPTA, J
JUDGMENT