Devender Kumar vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 893 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         BAIL APPLN. 16/2011

                                                       Decided on 14.02.2011

IN THE MATTER OF :
DEVENDER KUMAR                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. R.S.Malik, Dr.R.S.Tehlan and
                         Mr.S.Sharma, Advocates


                   versus

STATE                                                      ..... Respondent
                         Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State
                         SI Surya Prakash, PS Prashant Vihar


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.400/2009 lodged

under Sections 302/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Prashant Vihar,

New Delhi. The complainant herein is the brother of the deceased.

2. A Status Report was called for from the State. The same has

been filed. As per the Status Report, the undisputed facts of the case are

that the deceased Sh.Virender Singh was residing at Rohini along with his

family members and ran a printing press. He had a relationship with a lady

named Sheela Gupta(co-accused) who was stated to be in the habit of

frequently taking money from the deceased. The complainant was opposed

to his brother's relationship with this lady. On the date of the crime, i.e., on

27.1.2009, when the deceased did not return home till late night, as per the

complainant, he rushed to the residence of Ms.Sheela Gupta at 1AM only to

find the body of his brother lying in front of House No.5/33, Block E-1,

Sector-15, Rohini. In the complaint, it was alleged that Ms.Sheela Gupta

and one Yogesh Dagar were holding the legs of the deceased and the

accused persons were assaulting him with fists and kicks at the instigation of

Ms.Sheela Gupta. Thereafter, when a car reached the spot, the

complainant ran to his house to call his brothers and when he returned at

the place of occurrence, he found that the deceased had been removed to a

hospital by the police, where he was declared as brought dead. Apart from

Sheela Gupta and Yogesh Dagar, Jitender Soni and Sushila Chaudhary were

also arrested in the case and charges were framed against them. During the

course of the investigation, the complainant made a supplementary

statement before the police regarding the involvement of the petitioner

herein, who thereafter absconded and proceedings had to be initiated

against him under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.PC. Subsequently, he surrendered

himself before the learned MM and was arrested in the aforesaid case. A

supplementary charge has been framed against the petitioner.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that the charge sheet was

filed and charges have been framed and out of the twenty witnesses listed

by the prosecution, five public witnesses have already been examined, thus

leaving the remaining formal witnesses, including medical witnesses and

police officials still to be examined.

4. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant

has not made any allegation against the petitioner in his testimony, is borne

out from a perusal of the said testimony placed on record, which indicates

that the complainant(PW-1) has resiled from his statements made against

the petitioner and he has even refused to identify him. Learned APP for the

State confirms the aforesaid position.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

present petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted on bail subject to his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/-, with one surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that

the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the investigation while appearing

before the arresting officer/IO as and when called by him and will not create

any hindrance or impediment during the course of investigation. It is

further directed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without

obtaining the prior permission from the trial Court.

6. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are

confined to the relief sought in the present petition and shall not in any

manner influence the trial court in proceeding further with the case.

7. The petition is disposed of.

DASTI.

                                                        (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011                                          JUDGE
mk