Delhi High Court
Inderjeet @ Inder vs State on 8 July, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLICATION No.973/2010
Date of Decision : 08.07.2011
INDERJEET @ INDER ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.S.Sansawal, Adv.
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N. Dudeja, Adv.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application for grant of bail by the petitioner in
respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC registered by
P.S. Mehrauli vide FIR no.228/2009.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the independent prosecution witnesses
i.e. PW-5 and PW-6 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Secondly, it has been stated that the medical
report which is proved by the prosecution does not give the
genesis of assault by the accused on the deceased while as
it has been reported that he was found lying on the road
side.
3. Thirdly, it has been stated that the site plan which has
been prepared and proved by the prosecution does not
show the placement of the chappal in the site plan.
4. It is alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
5. The learned APP has disputed the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. He has stated that the
two sons of the deceased Amit and Gaurav Hans who are
purported to have taken the deceased to the hospital have
fully supported the case of the prosecution in their
statement recorded before the Court.
6. So far as the question of contradiction between the MLC
and the statement of the witnesses namely the sons of the
deceased are concerned, it has been stated that this cannot
be taken advantage of because the sons have categorically
stated that they had never made any statement before the
doctor giving the details as to how the injuries were
suffered by the deceased.
7. As regard, the non mentioning of the place in the site plan
where the chappals of the deceased were found, it has been
stated that on the basis of this fact, the petitioner cannot
be directed to be released on bail when the case is still
fixed for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
respective sides and have gone through the evidence.
9. Without recording any observations, which will have
adverse effect on the merits of the case, one can say from
the prima facie view of the testimony of the witnesses that
the sons of the deceased have supported the prosecution
evidence and testified against the accused/ petitioner.
They have also stated that they never made any statement
to the doctor that the deceased had been found lying on
the road side or they had not witnessed the incident.
10. In any case, so far as the contradiction between the MLC
and the testimony of the witnesses is concerned, that is the
question to be appreciated by the Trial Court at the stage
of final argument. At this point of time, it cannot be said
which of the two version is correct.
11. So far as the question of site plan is concerned, the non
showing of the place where the chappal was lying cannot
be a ground for release of the petitioner on the bail.
12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the
fact that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence in the
month of July, itself and the case is at penultimate stage, it
will not be just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
13. Expression of any opinion made hereinbefore may not be
treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
14. The bail application is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 08, 2011
RN
