Babbu Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2008 Latest Caselaw 1330 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Bail Application No.1395/2008

%                           Date of Decision: 12.08.2008

Babbu Singh                                        .... Petitioner
                        Through Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate

                                         Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)                                  .... Respondent
                        Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
                                SI Seema Singh, P.S Naraina
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                     YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                       NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                   NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure

Code for grant of bail in FIR No.208/2004 under Section

394,397,302/34 of IPC, Police Station Naraina, New Delhi. The

petitioner has contended that he is innocent and a peace loving citizen

and all the allegations made against him are prima facie false,

fabricated and doctored. This is the first bail application before the High

Court. The chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under Section

302/34 and 397 of IPC.

The petitioner contended that he had filed a bail application

before the Additional Sessions Judge which was, however, dismissed on

14th December, 2005.

The petitioner has sought bail on the ground that no prima facie

case is made out against him and a co-accused, Sachin Jaiswal was

discharged from all the charges by order dated 10th February, 2005 and

another accused Chandrika Prasad @ Budhai Yadav was granted bail

by order dated 6th May, 2008 in Bail Application No.407/2008. It is

contended that out of 22 chargesheet witnesses, the prosecution has

examined 16 witnesses to prove its case and the testimonies of the

witnesses already recorded have very vital and material contradictions

and fatal discrepancies. It is contended that the recovery of weapons of

crime is unnatural, concocted and unbelievable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there

has been improvement in the version in as much as PW.5 HC Subhash

had not assigned any specific role to the petitioner in his statement

under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the allegations

against the petitioner in the FIR are also not specific.

The case of the prosecution is that constable Subhash who was

posted in Naraina was deployed in Z Block, Loha Mandi as a beat

constable. He was patrolling near Naraina Vihar Railway Station when

he heard the sound of firing and when he reached the place one person

was found lying on the railway track and another person after

snatching the bag was running towards Y block crossing of the railway

line. He was chased by the said person. Three of the colleagues of the

person who had snatched the bag had fled to other side, however, the

petitioner was caught with the bag.

The said constable in his statement has categorically deposed

that he chased the petitioner for about 1 or 1½ km and HC Surender

and Ct.Surender came from the opposite direction and all them

overpowered the petitioner and brought him near to the person who was

lying near the railway track. The person who was lying at the railway

track was taken to the hospital, however, he was declared dead by the

doctors. In the cross examination of the said witness by the

complainant he deposed about catching the petitioner near the site of

the incident with the snatched bag. Another witness Ct.Surender has

also deposed that he saw a person coming towards him running

followed by Ct.Subash and he apprehended him who was holding a

black and red colour bag and after apprehending he disclosed his name

as Babu Singh and he identified the petitioner in the Court. He denied

the suggestion that the petitioner was not caught by the said witness

and Ct.Surender. The witness, Ct.Prakash had also deposed that the

petitioner was apprehended by Ct.Subhash and Ct.Surender.

From the perusal of the facts it is apparent that petitioner is the

main accused and consequently he is not entitled for bail merely

because Chandrika Prasad @ Budhai Yadav has been granted bail and

another person has been discharged. The petitioner was apprehended

from the spot and the snatched bag was also found in his hand. The

witnesses referred to by the petitioner have deposed categorically about

the petitioner being apprehended at the spot. The variations in the

statement of the witnesses pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are not such so as to discredit the statements of the said

witnesses completely.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Mela

Ram v. State, 2007 (145) DLT 741. Perusal of the facts and the ratio of

the case reveals that it is clearly distinguishable and on the basis of the

same petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous

and in the circumstances it will not be appropriate to admit the

petitioner to bail. The application is, therefore, without any merit and it

is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that anything stated in this order

is not the expression of opinion on the final merits of the case.

August 12th , 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J.

'K'