Jagdish vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 807 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Reserve: 3rd February, 2011
                                              Date of Order: 10th February, 2011
+ Bail Application No. 1633/2010
%                                                                10.02.2011

        Jagdish                                             ... Petitioner
                              Through: Mr. Rubinder Ghuman, Advocate and
                              Ms. Anu Mehta, Advocate
                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 on behalf of the accused

who is facing trial under Sections 302/323/324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC

for murder of one Vinit. The bail application was rejected by the trial Court

vide order dated 30th July, 2010. The accused is in judicial custody for more

than 02 years. The application is made on the plea that prosecution has

examined 11 witnesses and all the 11 witnesses have turned hostile and even

otherwise no role was assigned to the accused by the prosecution in murder

of the deceased, the accused was under detention without any reason.

2. The facts as narrated by the learned trial Court in its order dated

30th July, 2010 give the prosecution case as under:

".............After registration of the FIR, the investigation(s) was handed over to inspector Yashpal Singh. A crime team was called to the spot injured Rajendra @ Raju was medically examined and during the investigation(s) it was revealed that on 22.4.2006, one daughter of Raghubir Singh s/o Puran Singh, namely Mamta Rai @ Bali had eloped with his neighbour Sanjay s/o Ramphal, regarding which an FIR No.

617/06, u/s 363 IPC had been lodged at PS Sultan Puri, and the said Mamta after residing for two years at Nangloi came to the house of Sanjay two months ago and was also pregnant and there was tension between the families over this incident and the family members of Sanjay used to say that Sanjay had taken away their daughter in a manly manner. On 31.8.2008 relating to aspect of pregnancy of Mamta, his brother Chaturbhuj and elder brother of Sanjay namely Krishan had an altercation at around 8.15 p.m. A PCR van was also made and he was also the daily examined at SGMH Hospital.

On 31.08.2008 at around 9.00 pm. the wife of Krishan, namely Anita informed his mama Hansraj at Nangloi, regarding the said quarrel. Consequently, from there the mama of Sanjay, Hansraj, and his son Surendra @ Sonu along with their chacha Jagdish reached Sultanpuri and there the younger brother of Sanjay namely Vinod stated that a lesson has to be taught to the family members of Mamta and they should be finished.

Therefore, all the aforesaid persons i.e. Vinod, Jagdish and Surendra after having armed themselves with danda and pipes and sharped edged weapon reached the house of Raghubir, which was locked, thereafter, they made a lalkara and asked them to come down and when they did not open the door, they started abusing and told them to come down.

On hearing the commotion, many public persons of the area gathered there including one Peera Ram, who tried to stop the accused person and at this Vinod exhorted that he should be caught hold off and consequently all the accused persons started assaulting the said Peera Ram with their weapons.

At this, one Rajendra @ Raja, who was running a tea shop on the road, tried to save Peera Ram. At this Vinod stated that he was also sympathizer of Peera Ram, therefore, he should also be taught a lesson many public persons had also gathered there in the meanwhile and somebody from the crowd stated, that the accused persons be caught hold off. At this in order to scare the crowd, Vinod assaulted one person on his head with a lathi blow who started running towards his house and all the three accused persons ran after him and Vinod stated that "Ye sala raghbir ka pakka himayati legta hai, bachne na paye, ish ko khatam kar do". Thereafter Surender @ Sonu assaulted the said person with the iron rod on his head and Jagdish assaulted him on his face with some sharped edged weapon.

At that very time, son of Peera Ram, namely Sewa Ram @ Sabia came there with a knife in his hand and said that these persons be stopped, who had assaulted his father and they should be taught a lesson. However, the other person, who had been just assaulted by the aforesaid accused persons as mentioned above, namely, Vinod, Jagdish and Surindra could not save himself and Sabia thinking him to be the sympathizer of above accused persons, stabbed him with knife on the buttock of the said persons, who fell down in front of shops of A-5, Block, Sultan Puri, whose name was later on recorded as Vinit Kumar S/o Laxman."

3. A perusal of above facts would show that the deceased in this

case was not in the fight, he had intervened to save Peera Ram who was

being unnecessarily beaten. In the meantime son of Peera Ram viz. Sewa

Ram landed on the spot with a knife in his hand and he thought that deceased

was the person who had beaten his father Peera Ram and without making

any inquiry he stabbed him with knife resulting into death of deceased.

4. Whatever be the role of the accused person in picking up

quarrel with the family of Raghubir and assaulting other injured persons but

no role has been assigned to the accused by the prosecution in the charge-

sheet itself in the murder of Vinit Kumar s/o Laxman. Even as per the

prosecution it was Sewa Ram @ Sabia who had stabbed Vinit single

handedly though he did not belong to either of the two groups out to quarrel

with each other. All the eye witnesses so far examined by prosecution have

turned hostile and not supported its case. The counsel for State submitted

that there were yet more witnesses to be examined.

5. Considering the role assigned by the prosecution to the accused

I consider that keeping the accused in judicial custody any more would be

unjust. The bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be

released on bail on his executing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court

concerned.

Februrary 10, 2011                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn