Sheela vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 958 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         BAIL APPLN. 1869/2010

                                                       Decided on 17.02.2011

IN THE MATTER OF :
SHEELA                                                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
                         Ms. Arti Bhatnagar, Advocate


                   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. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of this Court

granting bail to a co-accused on 14.02.2011, in Bail Appln. No.16/2011 and

prays that bail be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. 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 the petitioner, 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 the petitioner.

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 the petitioner at 1 AM 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 the petitioner and one Yogesh Dagar were holding the legs

of the deceased and the other accused persons were assaulting him with

fists and kicks at the instigation of the petitioner. 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 the petitioner, Yogesh Dagar, Jitender Soni and

Sushila Chaudhary were also arrested in the case and charges were framed

against them.

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 her. 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 her

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 17, 2011                                                JUDGE
mk