Sidharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma vs State Of Delhi
2004 Latest Caselaw 1155 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.

1. By instant petition, the petitioner seeks his release on bail pending disposal of the case.

2. On 12th of April, 1999, at Qutab Colonade, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in the course of a weekly party which was drawing to a close, at about 2.00 a.m., the petitioner, accompanied by his friends, allegedly arrived there and asked for a drink. The waiter, however, omitted to respond. On petitioner's insistence, Ms.Ramani, co-owner of the restaurant, and Jassica Lal, deceased, intervened and told him that the party was over and no more liquor was left. The petitioner, however, did not relent and on his demand being not met, he got furious and took out a pistol from his pant and fired a shot, which hit the ceiling. He, thereafter, fired another shot aiming at Jessica Lal, deceased, resulting into a gun shot injury on her left side forehead. She, consequently, fell down. She was removed to Asslok Hospital with the help of one Jitender Raj.

3. On an information in regard to the incident being received by the police from PCR, the police reached the spot but by that time, the injured had already been removed to the hospital. Jassica Lal later succumbed to the gun-shot injury.

4. Two empty cartridge cases were taken into possession by the police from the spot.

5. Around 2.45 a.m., a white colour Tata Siera being driven by co-accused, Amarjit Gill, arrived and stopped near a Tata Safari Car parked there. A police official was, at the relevant time holding guard to the vehicles parked there. The said co-accused got into the Tata Safari and sped away. The police official tried to stop it but failed. He in the process hit at the rear side window pane on the driver's side of the Tata Safari. The vehicle was, subsequently, seized by the police of Sector 24, NIDA with changed window pane.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, pleading for bail, argued that no witness to the incident supported the prosecution case. A reference to the testimony of Shyam Munshi, PW-2, an eye witness, was made to point out that there were two persons, one firing in the air and the other on the girl, and the petitioner was not identified to be one of those two persons. Apart from examining three witnesses of occurrence, two other material Nepali witnesses were given up as they could not be produced by the prosecution. In terms of forensic report, contended the learned senior counsel, the two empty cartridge cases, which were seized by the police from the spot, were fired from two different fire arms and the petitioner's licensed pistol, which was taken into possession by the police, was not found to have been used as a weapon of offence.

7. Learned senior counsel pointed out that the petitioner had on six previous occasions been released on interim bail and every time he surrendered on time, and on none of occasions, he misused the liberty so granted. It was contended that after closure of prosecution evidence, examination of accused is now in process and detention of the petitioner in jail would, in the circumstances, serve no purpose.

8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea contending that deficiency in direct evidence notwithstanding complicity of the petitioner in commission of crime is well established on the strength of circumstantial evidence.

9. As the trial is nearing completion and judgment is expected shortly, embarking upon any discussion with reference to evidence, direct or circumstantial, would appear unwarranted.

10. The petitioner had the benefit of interim bail, from time to time. He was, however, declined extension of interim bail lastly vide order dated 11.11.2003. It was noticed that two material Nepali witnesses, who had not been forthcoming to make their statements before the Court, were not traceable. Continuance of the petitioner on interim bail was thought to be as one of the possible reasons for their non-appearance to depose in the case. It was, in the circumstances, felt that the continuance of the petitioner on interim bail was impeding the progress of trial and, consequently, request for extension was declined.

11. The petitioner challenged the order, declining extension of interim bail, before the Supreme Court. The special leave petition was, however, dismissed by an order dated 2.12.2003 which reads thus:

We find no merit in these petitions. Therefore, the special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that some of the observations made in the impugned order are likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner in his future attempt to get bail or in the trial. We think this apprehension is incorrect because the observations, if any, are only tentative and are meant only for the disposal of the present bail application. The same shall not be nd the court while considering future bail application, if any, nor will influence the trial court in the trial.

12. Keeping apart the merits of submissions made in support of renewed plea for bail, taking note that the trial is approaching final disposal, it is difficult to grant the prayer for regular bail. The same is, therefore, declined.

13. In the course of hearing, an alternative oral prayer for interim bail, was made. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in a business enterprise at Chandigarh and his continued absence due to confinement in jail, accounts for considerable slide in his business fortune. It was urged that release of the petitioner on interim bail on various occasions in the past bears testimony that he has never misused the concession. No useful purpose, contended the learned senior counsel, would be served by keeping the petitioner within the confines of jail for just awaiting final outcome.

14. Taking an overall view of the matter, while declining the release of the petitioner on regular bail, he is admitted to interim bail for a period of 90 days from the date of his release or until the day immediately preceding the date fixed for judgment, whichever is earlier, on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

15. On expiry of interim bail period, the petitioner shall surrender before the court concerned.

16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.