Delhi High Court
Shyam Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 December, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Appl.No.708/2011
Date of Decision : 19.12.2011
SHYAM SINGH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.K.Manan,
Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for grant of
regular bail in FIR No.109/2010, u/s 302/506/34 IPC
r/w 25/27 Arms Act, registered by PS Fatehpur Beri, in
respect of which trial is pending before the learned
Court of Sessions.
2. Mr.K.K.Manan, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the role of the petitioner which has
emerged from the testimony of the witnesses is that
the petitioner had allegedly held the victim from the
Bail Appl. No.708/2011 Page 1 of 6
back and co-accused Arjun @ Bittoo had fired with the
help of a katta. In this regard, learned counsel has
drawn the attention of the Court to the testimony of
PW-1 Jaipal, father of the deceased and PW-2 Kishan
and PW-3, Praveen brother of the deceased to contend
that none of them actually is an eye-witness to the
instant case and the only evidence which at best can
be construed against the petitioner is circumstantial in
nature, where he is alleged to have only immobilized
the victim. It is contended that there is no justification
of keeping the petitioner in custody as he is
languishing in the jail from 04.08.2010. The learned
counsel has also sought to place reliance on case titled
Shyam Behari Vs. State 1995 JCC 629 to contend that
in this case also the only role which is assigned to the
applicant is to hold the deceased, it is a case where
the bail should be granted.
3. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail
application of the petitioner on the ground that
petitioner and his co-accused persons are desperate
Bail Appl. No.708/2011 Page 2 of 6
character; there is a fear in the complainant family. It
is contended that in the year 2007 an FIR No.662 u/s
307 IPC of PS Mehrauli was registered against the
petitioner for an offence of attempt to murder for
which the trial is still pending.
4. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been
contended that on 06.06.2010 i.e. a day prior to the
date of incident when the alleged incident has taken
place an FIR No.106/2010 u/s 307 IPC was registered
by the same PS Fatehpuri Beri against the present
petitioner where the complainant's family was the
victim. The trial in respect of said case is still pending.
5. It is further stated that on the intervening night of 6-
7.06.2010, the petitioner along with two other co-
accused namely Arjun @ Bittoo and Vijender had
entered into the house of the complainant party where
Vijender, co-accused and the present petitioner
immobilized the victim and Arjun @ Bittoo fired from
katta. It is contended that had the petitioner not
immobilized the victim it could have been possible that
Bail Appl. No.708/2011 Page 3 of 6
he would have escaped the death. It is contended
that case is going on a fast pace and nine witnesses
have already been examined. Most of the witnesses
who are to be examined are formal in nature and
therefore, at this stage by inviting the Court to
conduct the analysis of evidence is going to prejudice
either of the parties. Therefore, it was prayed that
bail application of the petitioner be rejected.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention
which has been urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is essentially inviting the Court to embark
on the appreciation of the evidence which cannot be
done at this stage. So far as the role of the petitioner
is concerned, it is possible that he may have only
immobilized the deceased and the actual shot may
have been fired by somebody else but fact of the
matter remains that he has been charged for an
offence u/s 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The very fact
that Section 34 IPC has been invoked shows the
Bail Appl. No.708/2011 Page 4 of 6
common intention and the accomplice or the
accessories which has helped in commission of the
crime is liable to the same punishment to which the
principle accused is liable. Therefore, at this stage no
distinction can be made with regard to the grant of
bail as the seriousness of the allegations or the
quantum of punishment with which the offence is
punishable are the same.
7. Keeping in view the past criminal background of the
petitioner, I do not feel that it is a fit case where he
deserves to be enlarged on bail. Apart from this, I
have also gone through the order dated 09.05.2011
passed by the learned Court of Sessions wherein
similar submissions were made, which were
considered and disallowed.
8. For the abovementioned reasons, I feel that the
application for grant of bail is totally without any merit
as the allegations against the petitioner are very
serious in nature and at this stage it is totally
improper to dissect the evidence minutely and then
Bail Appl. No.708/2011 Page 5 of 6
find out the role of the petitioner for the purpose of
extending the benefit of bail to him.
9. Dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2011
mr
