#19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 06.05.2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 917/2016 and Crl. MA No. 7355/2016
SHAKTI SINGH @ SONU ..... Applicant
Through Mr. Suyash Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP SI Rajender Singh, PS Nand Nagri CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A. No. 7355/2016 (Exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 917/2016
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 501/2014, under Sections 307/34 IPC read with Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 22nd December, 2014 and the trial is underway.
BAIL APPLN. 917/2016 Page 1 of 3
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant invites my attention to the testimony of PW-3 Sheela to urge that she has deposed that her son including PW-2 Naveen were inside the dwelling house when she and Rahul (the other injured) received firearms injuries; and consequently, the testimony of PW-2 Naveen to the effect that he saw the applicant herein discharging his firearms at PW-3 Sheela and Rahul, cannot be believed.
4. Counsel for the applicant would then urge that the investigation was shoddy as no bullet shells were recovered from the place where the alleged incident is stated to have occurred.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned APP appearing on behalf of the official respondent, would urge that the applicant has been clearly and unequivocally identified by PW-2 Naveen, which testimony has remained un-shattered during the cross-examination.
6. It is further urged on behalf of the prosecution that the MLCs qua PW-3 Sheela and Rahul clearly opine that they suffered lacerated wounds caused by a firearm.
7. In the present case, it is observed that Rahul, the other victim, who suffered injuries, is yet to be examined before the Trial Court. BAIL APPLN. 917/2016 Page 2 of 3
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, a prima facie case supported by evidence has been made out to sustain the grave and serious allegations levelled against the applicant in the present case.
9. Given the conduct of the applicant as deposed to by the witnesses at the trial, it would not be unreasonable on the part of the Court to assume that there is a distinct possibility of the public witnesses, who are yet to be examined, being intimidated by the applicant, in the event the latter is enlarged on bail by this Court, at this juncture.
10. It is also observed that the Court is not expected to weigh the testimony/evidence at the stage of considering an application for bail.
11. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances antecedent and attendant, in my view, the present case is not a fit case for grant of regular bail at this juncture.
12. The bail application is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 06, 2016 SD BAIL APPLN. 917/2016 Page 3 of 3