Sachchu @ Sachin vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 2403 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPLN. 1631/2010

                                      Date of Decision : 04.05.2011

SACHCHU @ SACHIN                                 ...... Petitioner
                         Through    Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mr. Gurpreet
                                    Gulati, Advs.

                                Versus

STATE                                               ....Respondent
                              Through:   Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?

V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)


1.     I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

       the learned APP on the question of grant of bail under Section

       439 Cr.P.C in respect of FIR No. 83/2008 under Section

       302/34 IPC. I have also gone through the record.


2.     The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

       the testimony of PW3 Ranvir Singh, father of the deceased

       does not inspire confidence inasmuch as he states in his

       cross-examination that he had reached at his house at 10.00

       PM, while as the incident is purported to have occurred

       around 9.00 PM when he is supposed to have seen the

       deceased in the company of the present petitioner. Therefore,


Bail Appln. 1631/2010                                  Page 1 of 2
        it is stated that this raises a doubt regarding the credibility of

       his testimony.


3.     I feel that the learned counsel for the petitioner is dissecting

       the testimony of PW3 Ranvir Singh minutely for the purpose

       of grant of bail which cannot be permitted to be done. PW-3's

       testimony if read in full shows that before going to the market

       to get the vegetables, he had come to home where he had

       seen his deceased son in the company of the present

       petitioner. In addition to this, the petitioner admittedly owed

       some money to the deceased which gives rise to the motive for

       commission of offence. I do not consider it to be a fit case for

       grant of bail at this stage.       Expression of any opinion

       hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the

       merits of the case.


4.     Dismissed.




                                                        V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 04, 2011 'ga'