Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State on 11 February, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1200/2010
Decided on 11.02.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate with
Ms. Neeraj Pal, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439
of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of bail in FIR No.58/2009 lodged
under Sections 302/394 IPC, registered with Police Station: Connaught
Place, New Delhi.
2. Notice was issued on the present petition on 13.07.2010, when,
in view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the
medical condition of the petitioner ought to be ascertained, learned APP for
the State was directed to file a Status Report, as to the mental condition of
the petitioner, which was required to be submitted by IHBAS, Shahdara. On
18.08.2010, the nominal roll of the petitioner was forwarded and on the said
date, counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been admitted
in IHBAS, Shahdara on 04.08.2010. As a result, the Medical
Superintendent, IHBAS, Shahdara was directed to submit a report as to the
mental status of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on
21.10.2010. On 17.01.2011, notice was taken of the report dated
16.08.2010 submitted by the Senior Medical Officer, Central Jail No.4, Tihar,
New Delhi but as the report from IHBAS was still not on record, the matter
was adjourned.
3. Today, counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this
Court to the report of the Medical Board constituted by IHBAS, Shahdara in
respect of the petitioner. As per the report of the Medical Board, there is no
evidence of psychiatric illness or mental subnormality in the petitioner.
Pertinently, one of the grounds taken for grant of bail is the medical
condition of the petitioner, which is now no longer available to him, in view
of the opinion submitted by the Medical Board.
4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that even on
merits, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail as even though the FIR was
initially registered against him under Sections 302/394 IPC, recently, vide
order dated 10.11.2010, the learned Sessions Judge held that there was no
evidence on record to attract the provisions of Section 394 IPC and thus, no
charge could be framed against the petitioner under the said provision. As
a result, the petitioner was discharged under Section 394 IPC. However,
charges were framed against him under Section 302 IPC. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was a dish washer in a restaurant
situated at Connaught Place, where the crime took place and that he belongs
to a middle class educated family and has been unnecessarily implicated in
the present case. He is, therefore, entitled to grant of bail.
5. As per the status report filed by the learned APP, the incident in
question occurred on 14.02.2009 at about 1:15/1:30 AM. The aforesaid
date being Valentine Day, there was huge rush at the restaurant till 12:30
AM. After entry of guests was closed, the cashier is stated to have counted
the cash and the same was found to be about `2.20 lacs, which was a huge
amount. The aforesaid information was conveyed to the owner of the
restaurant in the presence of the petitioner and two others. After the
employees, including the petitioner, left the restaurant, the deceased,
Rajesh Thakur, who was posted as security guard at the restaurant, checked
the cash counter. The petitioner accompanied his colleagues outside the
restaurant, but it is submitted that in the course of investigation, it was
learnt from the Pan vendor, sitting opposite Competent House, middle Circle,
Connaught Place, from where the staff of Host Restaurant used to enter/exit,
that on that very night, the petitioner came to his shop, made some
purchases and then went towards the restaurant from the back side.
6. It is stated by the learned APP that it is a case where
circumstantial evidence exists, which reveals that the petitioner was aware
of the fact that there was a large amount of cash lying at the restaurant and
that there was only one security guard to guard the restaurant on that date.
He was also the last seen person entering the restaurant from the back side.
It is further stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the
petitioner, the police team went to Deen Dayal Upadhyaye Marg under
Ranjeet Singh Flyover, from where they recovered one black polythene bag,
which was found to contain one blood stained Angocha of white and red
colour, one torn sheet of the Hindustan Times newspaper, which was blood
stained, an iron Moosali and two broken pieces of old wooden wickets, which
were blood stained. It is further stated by the learned APP that the petitioner
had absconded and had not joined the investigation, till he was accosted on
16.04.2009 at the Bus Stop, Tilak Marg with his brother and was
subsequently arrested. On enquiry, learned APP further informs the Court
that after framing of charges, the matter is now listed on 24.02.2011 for
recording the evidence of the prosecution and it is apprehended that in case
the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he may influence the material
witnesses.
7. Having regard to the gravity of the facts and
circumstances of the present case as noted above and in view of the fact
that none of the public witnesses have been examined till now, at this stage,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is,
therefore, dismissed.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 11, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
