Ramesh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3592 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Reserve:28th July, 2010

                               Date of Order: 3rd August , 2010

                                 + Bail Appln. 955 of 2010
%                                                                               03.08.2010
         Ramesh                                                        ...Petitioner
         Through: Mr.D.V. Goyal, Advocate

         Versus

         State                                                         ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            ORDER

1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the

applicant /accused for grant of regular bail who is facing trial under Sections

302/365/201/120-B read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The present application is made by the accused on the ground that the accused

was in judicial custody since 27th November 2007 and nineteen witnesses had already

been examined during trial and nothing incriminating has come against the accused.

3. A perusal of the chargesheet and the case of the prosecution would show that the

entire case against accused was based on circumstantial evidence. One of the

circumstances against accused/applicant is of last seen with the deceased. The

prosecution witnesses, cited by the prosecution at the time of filing the chargesheet,

Bail Appln. 955/2010 Ramesh. V State Page 1 Of 2 have not turned hostile during their testimony and nothing substantial in favour of present

accused/applicant has come in their cross examination. The remaining witnesses are yet

to be examined. There is no change in circumstances from the time when the bail of

accused was refused till date. Rather the prosecution witnesses have supported the

prosecution version. I, therefore, consider that it was not appropriate to grant bail to the

applicant/accused. The bail application is hereby dismissed.

August 03, 2010                                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Bail Appln. 955/2010                 Ramesh. V State                       Page 2 Of 2