* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLICATION No.973/2010
Date of Decision : 08.07.2011
INDERJEET @ INDER ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.S.Sansawal, Adv.
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N. Dudeja, Adv.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application for grant of bail by the petitioner in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC registered by P.S. Mehrauli vide FIR no.228/2009.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the independent prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-5 and PW-6 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Secondly, it has been stated that the medical Bail Appl.973/2010 Page 1 of 4 report which is proved by the prosecution does not give the genesis of assault by the accused on the deceased while as it has been reported that he was found lying on the road side.
3. Thirdly, it has been stated that the site plan which has been prepared and proved by the prosecution does not show the placement of the chappal in the site plan.
4. It is alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
5. The learned APP has disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has stated that the two sons of the deceased Amit and Gaurav Hans who are purported to have taken the deceased to the hospital have fully supported the case of the prosecution in their statement recorded before the Court.
6. So far as the question of contradiction between the MLC and the statement of the witnesses namely the sons of the deceased are concerned, it has been stated that this cannot be taken advantage of because the sons have categorically stated that they had never made any statement before the Bail Appl.973/2010 Page 2 of 4 doctor giving the details as to how the injuries were suffered by the deceased.
7. As regard, the non mentioning of the place in the site plan where the chappals of the deceased were found, it has been stated that on the basis of this fact, the petitioner cannot be directed to be released on bail when the case is still fixed for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have gone through the evidence.
9. Without recording any observations, which will have adverse effect on the merits of the case, one can say from the prima facie view of the testimony of the witnesses that the sons of the deceased have supported the prosecution evidence and testified against the accused/ petitioner. They have also stated that they never made any statement to the doctor that the deceased had been found lying on the road side or they had not witnessed the incident.
10. In any case, so far as the contradiction between the MLC and the testimony of the witnesses is concerned, that is the question to be appreciated by the Trial Court at the stage Bail Appl.973/2010 Page 3 of 4 of final argument. At this point of time, it cannot be said which of the two version is correct.
11. So far as the question of site plan is concerned, the non showing of the place where the chappal was lying cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner on the bail.
12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence in the month of July, itself and the case is at penultimate stage, it will not be just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
13. Expression of any opinion made hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
14. The bail application is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 08, 2011 RN Bail Appl.973/2010 Page 4 of 4