Sarvesh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5173 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                               Date of reserve: November 11, 2010
                                                Date of Order: 12th November, 2010
+ Bail Application No. 1387/2010
%                                                                      12.11.2010

        Sarvesh                                                        ... Appellant
                                 Through:      Mr.R.P.Luthra, Adv.

                Versus

        State                                                    ... Respondent
                                 Through:      Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP for the 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?

JUDGMENT

1. This application for bail has been made by the accused who is facing

trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the

counsel for the accused that accused was in J.C. since 01.3.2008 and 11

prosecution witnesses including all public and material witnesses have been

recorded. He submitted that till date not an iota of evidence is on record

against the appellant and the appellant was languishing in jail without any

legally admissible evidence. Therefore, the court should enlarge him on bail.

2. The learned APP on the other hand submitted that the case against the

accused was based on circumstantial evidence and the evidence so far

sufficiently proved the involvement of the accused and it was not a case

where no evidence was there against the accused.

3. I have gone through the testimony of witnesses as relied upon by the

counsel for the appellant as well as by the prosecution. The deceased in this

case was living in the same premises in which accused was living. As per

prosecution accused was having a suspicion against the deceased that

deceased has developed illicit relations with his wife and after this suspicion

accused planned to eliminate the deceased. There is evidence showing that

the accused was seen near the place of murder soon after the murder. The

blood stained clothes of the accused were sent to CFSL and report of CFSL

shows that the blood on clothes of accused was of the same group as that of

deceased. Accused had taken help of his co-accused in this crime and

weapon of offence used in the crime was recovered at the instance of co-

accused. These facts have already come on record in the testimony of

witnesses. What weight is to be given to the testimony of witnesses is to be

decided by the trial court at the time of giving judgment. Therefore, it would

not be appropriate for this Court to analyze the evidence at this stage.

However, suffice it to say that it is not a case where no evidence has come on

record against the accused.

4. I, therefore, find no reason to allow this bail application.

5. The bail application is dismissed.

November 12, 2010                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vg