Delhi High Court

Triveni Sharma @ Sonu vs State on 30 January, 2012

Author: M. L. Mehta

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          BAIL APPLN. 1114/2011

                                                 Reserved on: 24.01.2012
                                               Pronounced on:30.01.2012

TRIVENI SHARMA @ SONU                                ...... PETITIONER
                  Through:            Mr.R.M.Tufail, Mr. Anwar A.Khan,
                                      Mr.Farooq Chaudhary, Advocates.

                                  Versus

STATE                                              ...... RESPONDENT

                           Through:   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP with Inspector
                                      Vinod Kumar, Inspector Randhir, SI
                                      Afaque Ahmed.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA


M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 201/2010, registered at

P.S. Adarsh Nagar under Sections 302/307/34 IPC. He along with the co-

accused are facing trial in aforesaid case, which came to be registered

after the incident of two persons having been injured with gun shot fires

and one dying instantly.

2. The allegations against the culprits are that when victims Rahul

Rathi along with his brother Anuranjan Rathi went to a Dhaba for the

dinner and were sitting in the car, Jyoti, Babla and their friends came and

fired indiscriminately without provocation on their car wherein they were

sitting. The incident was of 8.8.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. The

complainant Rahul Rathi somehow managed to drive the car from there

and reached at the police picket and then was shifted to hospital. On 11 th

August, 2010, he gave further statement under Section 161 CrPC that he

suspected Jyoti and Babla behind the firing as they had previous enmity

with him but he had not seen them. He has also stated that on the night of

the incident, they were sitting in the car of his friend Mahender Pahalwan

and that Bijender Yadav, his associates Triveni Sharma @ Sonu (the

petitioner) and Sonu S/o Kedar Nath have attacked on them as Mahender

Pahalwan and Bijender Yadav had some differences over a plot and

business rivalry between them. This fact of Mahender Pahalwan and

Bijender Yadav having dispute with Rahul Rathi was also stated by

Mahender Pahalwan to the police. Mahender Pahalwan also stated

having given his car to the complainant Rahul Rathi and suspected the

hand of Bijender Yadav, Triveni Sharma (the petitioner) and Sonu S/o

Kedar nath behind the incident of firing. He further stated that the

accused persons might have fired on his car thinking that he was inside

his car. Later, the petitioner, disclosed that he along with Bijender

Yadav, Vinod Bhagte, Vikas, Neeraj Seena, Pardeep and Sonu hatched a

conspiracy in the office of Bijender Yadav for murder of Mahender

Pahalwan. The petitioner further disclosed that he along with his

associates went to the site of incident and fired indiscriminately thinking

that Mahender Pahalwan and his friend Rahul Rathi were sitting in the car

and thereafter, absconded from the spot after the firing incident. During

the investigation, it was revealed that Rs. 50,000/- in cash was given to

the petitioner by Bijender Yadav to purchase a second hand car for the

said purpose and so, he purchased a second hand car being No. DL4CM

5464 in the name of Rajesh Kumar, a car dealer. He also disclosed

having developed information of movements of Mahender Pahalwan.

The documents of the aforesaid car were recovered from the house of the

petitioner at his instance. Other co-accused Vikas Kataria, Pradeep

Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Vinod Bhagte were also arrested at his

instance. The pistol and revolver along with the cartridges were

recovered at the instance of other accused persons. The accused persons

refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Rajesh Kumar, who was

the car dealer had stated about the petitioner having bought the aforesaid

second hand car through him. The mechanic Balram @ Bunty, in his

statement also stated the petitioner having got repaired the car from him

and taken delivery of the same. The FSL report had confirmed the empty

cartridges recovered from the spot and the bullet leads recovered from the

car as fired from the weapons recovered at the instances of the accused

persons. The nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and his

brother Anuranjan were opined as grievous. Some of the accused persons

are absconding and have been declared Proclaimed Offender. The

prosecution case was at the stage of trial and out of 38 witnesses, about

20 witnesses have already been examined. Out of the witnesses

examined, five are the public witnesses.

3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was

that the complainant Rahul Rathi knew the petitioner but did not name

him immediately after the incident and also did not name him in the

statement made on 11th August, 2010. He submitted that no TIP was

conducted of the petitioner and the identification of the petitioner by

Rahul Rathi in the court could not be the basis of his involvement in the

commission of offence. He submitted that since all the public witnesses

have been examined, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail.

4. At the outset, learned APP submitted that the petitioner was a

dreaded criminal in his circle. He submitted that the main witnesses

namely Anuranjan Rathi still remains to be examined. He also submitted

that it was on the disclosure of the petitioner that co-accused were

arrested. He further submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in

conspiracy that was hatched to eliminate Mahender Yadav. He also

submitted that when the matter was pending trial before the Sessions

Court, it was the Trial Court which could have better appreciated the

testimonies of the witnesses.

5. The principles of bail have been dealt with in various judicial

pronouncements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs.

Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, held as under:

"18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused".

6. Further, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of

Mahrashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court observed thus:

"84. Just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in

maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important".

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State and keeping in view the facts of the incident as briefly

noted above, I do not intend to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage

when the case of the prosecution is at the stage of nearly completion of

trial and when two main public witnesses still remains to be examined.

Though the critical analysis and comments on the testimonies of the

PW16 Rahul Rathi and PW13 Mahender Pahalwan, is not desired to be

made at this stage but, having gone through their statements and cross