Gulshan vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 3978 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288/2009

                                        Reserved on : 16.09.2009
                                    Date of Decision : 25.09.2009

Gulshan                                          ......Petitioner
                               Through:   Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv.

                                Versus

The State (NCT of Delhi)                   ...... Respondent
                               Through:   Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                                   NO
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                        NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                                NO

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed

by the petitioner in FIR No. 220/2008 under Section

323/341/304/34 IPC registered at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar,

Delhi.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant

of bail on the ground that the petitioner was originally

granted bail on 15th May, 2008 as the case was registered

under Sections 323/341/34 IPC which were bailable

offences, however, later on, on account of death of the

injured in hospital on 25th May, 2008, Section 304 IPC was

added and petitioner was again arrested on the same date

i.e. 25th May, 2008. It is alleged that the accused is

languishing in jail since 2008. It is urged that there is a

delay of 2 ½ days in lodging the FIR. There is no recovery

of bat with which the petitioner is alleged to have hit the

injured/deceased. It is alleged that the MLC which was

originally recorded did not bear the name of the petitioner

as the assailant. The learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the case titled Ashu Kumar Vs. State 2009

(2) JCC 1445 to contend that the petitioner may be granted

bail.

3. The prosecution has contested the bail application of the

petitioner on the ground that the mother and the sister of

the deceased have supported the prosecution case. It is

stated that merely on account of the fact that the bat is not

recovered is not a ground for granting the benefit of bail to

the petitioner.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the respective

sides and have also perused the record. Merely on

account of the fact that the bat with which the injuries

were caused has not been recovered or that there was a

delay of 2 ½ days in lodging the FIR would not in itself

constitute a ground for grant of bail. The delay in lodging

the FIR is on account of the fact that initially the deceased

had suffered injuries and he was taken to hospital.

Apparently, the injuries seemed to be simple in nature and

this is the reason why the petitioner was also released on

bail. However, later on the injured died after a couple of

days because of which the FIR got converted to Section 304

IPC. The mother and the sister of the deceased who have

been examined as a prosecution witnesses have supported

the prosecution case. The gravity of charges against the

petitioner are very serious which does not warrant the

release of the petitioner on bail.

5. I accordingly feel that the petitioner does not deserve to be

granted the benefit of being released on bail. The

application for grant of bail is disallowed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 KP