Brahm Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 827 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the main accused, Manoj. Manoj and his brothers including the deceased had a dispute over the property in which they were residing. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the statement of the wife of the deceased that the present petitioner along with other elder members of the family had tried to sort out the dispute among the brothers and a compromise was worked out about two months ago. She further submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the incident which occurred on 19.12.2004 whereby the deceased, Virender Pal, received burn injuries and succumbed to the same. The deceased, Virender Pal, made two statements.

One on 19.12.2004 itself and one subsequently around 20.12.2004 In the first statement, the name of the present petitioner does not figure at all and the accusations are against Manoj and the other brothers and one neighbour. It is only in the subsequent statement that the name of the present petitioner has been included and the role ascribed to him was that he threw the burning matchstick and the names of Manoj and the other brothers and one neighbour have been removed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the deceased was fit to make a statement on 19.12.2004 as recorded by the Doctor in the hospital and, therefore, these two differing statements of the deceased create doubts as to whether the present petitioner was at all involve in the said incident.

2. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail, however, he was unable to explain as to why the two statements were entirely different. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the statement of the wife of the deceased also disclosed that the petitioner was nowhere involved in the incident as what she has stated corroborates what the deceased had stated in his first statement. There is another aspect of this matter and that is that the present petitioner is the father-in-law of the main accused, Manoj, and he lives separately from where the main accused and his brothers were residing. The incident is said to be of early morning at 6.00 am and, therefore, the presence of the present petitioner is also in doubt.

3. In these circumstances, I find there is merit in what the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted and, accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

This application stands disposed of.