Delhi High Court
Jagdeep Singh @ Vicky vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 September, 2008
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Bail Application No. 2629/2007
Date of Decision:- September 12, 2008
Jagdeep Singh @ Vicky ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.P. Wadhwa with
Mr. Amrik Singh, Advs.
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi ... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in
the Digest? Yes
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
The applicant, who has been arrested on 25.05.2005
in connection with FIR No. 223/2004, registered at P.S.
Vikaspuri, under Sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC has filed this
application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail
as he is in jail since 25.05.2005.
2. Now coming to the merits of the present case. The
case of the prosecution is that the present applicant Jagdeep
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 1 of 6
Singh @ Vicky in conspiracy with other co-accused namely
Vikramjeet Singh Sethi and Jasbir Singh @ Goldy with the help
of one Manohar Singh @ Lucky committed murder of one
Ranjeet Singh Sethi @ Happy. As per prosecution case Jagdeep
Singh at the instance of one Jasbir Singh Sodhi resident of
London, with whom he had gone together on 6.5.2004 from
Delhi to Dubai and planned the murder taking an amount of Rs.
20 lacs to eliminate Happy Sethi, deceased. Out of that amount,
he has given Rs. 50,000/- to Vikramjeet and Jasbir Singh @
Goldy respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
allegations against the applicant are false and frivolous and he
has nothing to do with the commission of alleged offence. There
is not even an iota of evidence to connect him with the
commission of the alleged crime. The learned counsel further
submitted that he has been in continuous custody for more than
2 years and is stated to be critically ill as he is suffering from
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with increased Alkaline
Transferase, Hiatus Hernia and generalized tonic clonic seizures
and not in a very stable condition. He further submitted that
trial is likely to take a long time inasmuch as the prosecution till
date has examined only 7 out of total 39 witnesses. He,
therefore, contends that the applicant is entitled to be released
on bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 2 of 6
placed reliance upon judgments in Nafe Singh v. State 1993 (1)
CCC 254 (Delhi High Court), Lakhbir Singh v. The State (NCT of
Delhi) 2002 (1) JCC 130 (Delhi High Court) and Viney Kumar v.
State of Punjab dated 19.10.1995, Crl.Mis.No. 10974/1995
(Punjab & Haryana High Court).
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, as there are
specific allegations against him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and have perused the record. 14 witnesses out of 39
have already been examined. The offence in this case is very
grave and serious. There is sufficient evidence on record to
connect this accused with the said offence. The statements of
Smt. Satnam Kaur, PW-10, Sh. Manmohan Singh, PW-11, Smt.
Jagjit Kaur PW-13 recorded by the trial Court. The recovery of
the scooter used in crime, recovered at the instance of
Vikramjeet Sethi and other circumstantial evidences like
Jagdeep @ Vicky embarked from IGI Airport Delhi on 6.5.2004
vide flight EK-511 to Dubai along with Jasbir Singh Sodhi and
disembarked at Dubai on the same day and other circumstantial
evidence are very much relevant to show the involvement of this
accused, as the main conspirator cannot be ruled out. The case
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 3 of 6
against petitioner/ applicant primarily hinges upon
circumstantial evidence.
6. It is a matter of common experience that direct
evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Privacy and
secrecy are more characteristic of a conspiracy than of a loud
discussion in an elevated place open to public view. It is not
always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of
the formation of criminal conspiracy, about the object, and
about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be
carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference.
Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after
the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. As per law laid down by the Apex
Court matters to be considered in an application for bail are :-
(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the applicant had committed the offence; (ii) nature
and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction; (iv) danger of the applicant absconding or
fleeing if released on bail (v) character, behaviors, means,
position and standing of the applicant; (vi) likelihood of the
offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with (viii) danger of course of justice
being thwarted by the grant of bail. The application of bail has
to be considered on general principles and the jurisdiction for
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 4 of 6
grant of bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled
principles having regard to the circumstances of the particular
case. There appears to be prima facie case against the
applicant showing that he was associated with other two
accused persons and has indulged in helping and supporting
them. Jasbir Singh @ Goldy one of the accused in the crime is
his cousin (Buwa ka ladka).
7. Merely because the applicant is in custody for the
last 2 years would not by itself be a ground to grant him regular
bail. But the applicant is pressing this bail application primarily
on medical ground as he is suffering from Hiatus Hernia with
convulsive disorder with hypertension and some other ailments
as is confirmed from medical status report from Sr. Medical
Officer, Central Jail No. 8-9, Tihar Jail, New Delhi dated
12.8.2008.
8. Keeping in view the vicious antecedents of the
applicant as around 14 criminal cases are pending against him,
to admit the applicant on regular bail will not be in the interest
of justice. However, taking into the consideration the serious
medical condition which is deteriorating in the Jail hospital, it is
a fit case where petitioner/applicant should be granted interim
bail for a period of two months to enable him to take proper
medical treatment. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 5 of 6
released on interim bail for a period of two months from the
date of his release, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court.
9. The application stands disposed of.
10. Nothing observed hereinabove will tantamount to
expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Dasti.
S. L. BHAYANA
(Judge)
September 12, 2008
Bail Application No. 2629/2007 page 6 of 6
