Deepak Detwal vs State
1998 Latest Caselaw 9 Del

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Shamim, J.

1. This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in the ent case. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since June 6,1997.

3. Learned PP, Ms. Mukta Gupta, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner hired the assassins to kill the deceased. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer. He employed Shri Vijay Kumar accused about ten days prior to the occurrence as his personal Body Guard who on his turn hired as assassins certain persons known as Sanjay, Dalip, Hari Mohan and Ravi to liquidate the deceased R.P.Singh. Learned PP in this connection has led me through the statement of one Zafar Ahmad who has stated that the relations in between the petitioner and the deceased were very much strained. There were bickering and disputes between the parties on sharing the bribe money.

4. Then there is the statement of PW Jatinder Gotwal again with regard to the strained relations in between the petitioner and the deceased. Learned PP has then led me through the statement of Smt. Manorama, wife of the deceased who has stated that her husband was receiving threats. She suspects the hand of the petitioner in the murder of the deceased. Then there is a disclosure statement of Shri Vijay Kumar, the Body Guard of the petitioner, which led to the recovery of Rs. 65,000/- from him.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances I do not think present case is a fit case for bail. Dismissed.