Balbir Singh @ Kalu vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 4107 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           Bail Appl. No.742/2011

                                   Date of Decision: 24.08.2011

BALBIR SINGH @ KALU                                ...... Petitioner
                                    Through: Mr.K.K. Manan, Adv.
                                             with   Mr.N.Bhardwaj,
                                             Adv.

                                    Versus

STATE                                        ...... Respondent
                                    Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma,
                                             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 a petition for grant of regular bail filed by the

petitioner, Balbir Singh @ Kalu, in respect of FIR

No.259/2010, registered under section 302/34 IPC at

P.S. Sarai Rohilla, in respect of which the trial is

pending before the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that

on receipt of DD No.2A, dated 26.07.2010, the IO

reached Jeevan Mala Hospital, Delhi, where doctors

had declared one Mr.Narender, s/o Late

Sh.Satyanarayan, R/o B-1448, Shastri Nagar, Delhi,

aged about 36 years having been brought dead with a

history of multiple punctured wounds over chest and

upper limbs. On the basis of the statement of one Anil,

brother of the deceased, accused Balbir Singh @ Kalu,

s/o Sh.Harjeet Singh, R/o B-1331, Shastri Nagar, Delhi

was arrested and FIR No.259/2010 was registered for

an offence under section 302 IPC by PS Shastri Nagar,

Delhi. The pocker allegedly used as the weapon of

offence, was also recovered, near Udham Singh School,

Shastri Nagar, Delhi, at the instance of the accused.

Blood stained Santro car and the blood stained clothes

belonging to the petitioner was also recovered apart

from accused, Balbir @ Kalu. Blood stained earth was

also taken from the front of H.No.B-1448, Shastri

Nagar, Delhi, which was sent for examination to

Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi. After

investigation, the chargesheet was filed and presently

the case is pending trial and out of 25 prosecution

witnesses, 15 witnesses have been examined.

3. Mr.K.K. Manan, learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that PW-2/Surjeet, who is one of the eye-

witnesses, was not known to the petitioner and no Test

Identification Parade was done. Secondly, it has been

stated that the case of the prosecution is that, the

deceased, Narender was stabbed allegedly by the

present petitioner in his shop, while as one chappal

and blood was found splattered outside the shop,

which clearly reflects that there is a serious

contradiction in the prosecution story with regard to

the place, where the incident is purported to have

taken place. So far as the motive is concerned, it has

been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there was no motive for the petitioner to

murder, the deceased, Narender and he has been

falsely implicated in the instant case.

4. Mr.Naveen Sharma, learned APP has contested the

claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

contended that the learned counsel by raising the

question of TIP has tried to assail the evidence on

merits, which cannot be done at this stage, when the

trial is pending and is at penultimate stage. It has been

stated that the petitioner had not only stabbed the

deceased in the shop but also on the road side in as

much as one chappal of the deceased was found inside

the shop while as the other was found on the road side.

Blood was spotted both inside the shop and outside the

shop, which clearly shows that after the deceased was

attacked either he was dragged out of the shop by the

petitioner or he had run after the accused, namely, the

present petitioner. This fact of recovery of chappal at

two places has also been recorded by the IO in his

seizure memo, while taking into custody the various

articles from the place of occurrence. It has been

contended that the substantial number of witnesses

have already been examined and it has already come on

record that the petitioner had a motive in attacking the

deceased in as much as the deceased had seen the

petitioner dropping one Swati, daughter of one of the

neighbour of the deceased with whom the petitioner

was having a love affair. It is also alleged that the

accused was apprehensive that Narender will disclose

the affair between the accused and Swati and,

therefore, the accused tried to remove Narender from

his way.

5. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and

the nature of evidence, especially the penultimate stage

of trial, I feel that it is not a fit case where the accused

should be enlarged on bail.

6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 24, 2011 ss