Naveen Dagar vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8957 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Judgment delivered on : December 02, 2015

+     BAIL APPLN. 2504/2015
      NAVEEN DAGAR                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:         Mr.S.P. Kaushal, Mr.Rohit Kumar
                                      and    Mr.  Dhananjai        Kaushal,
                                      Advocates.
                    versus
      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                              Prosecutor for the State with
                              Inspector Manoj Kumar, Police
                              Station Baba Haridas Nagar, New
                              Delhi.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
                           JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this application, the petitioner seeks bail under Section 439

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case registered vide FIR

No.123/12 (SC No.85/12) registered under Section 307/120-B/34 of

IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Baba

Haridas Nagar, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2015,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge

(NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, vide which the bail application

filed by the present petitioner has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case is that a PCR call regarding firing at the

office of MLA Bharat Singh at Najafgarh was received on 02.06.2012

at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar vide DD No.14A. Upon inquiry,

it was revealed that armed miscreants had entered into the office of

Bharat Singh and caused bullet injuries to him and his maternal uncle

Dharam Pal by indiscriminate firing. The injured were taken to the

hospital. Since both the injured persons were declared unfit by the

doctors for statements, Krishan Kumar (brother of injured Bharat

Singh) informed that the names of the assailants including the

petitioner were disclosed to him by Bharat Singh while he was being

taken to the hospital. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on

05.06.2012 and ultimately on 29.06.2012, Bharat Singh specifically

named the petitioner as one of the assailants. Injured Bharat Singh and

Krishan Kumar have been examined as PW4 and PW10 and they

supported the case of the prosecution. However the other injured

Dharampal (PW5) has corroborated the occurrence of incident but

failed to identify the assailants.

4. Mr.S.P. Kaushal, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2012 and his first bail application

was dismissed by the Court on 22.08.2014. In second application of

the petitioner, before this court, the Trial Court was directed to

complete the examination of the 'remaining public witnesses' within a

period of two months, giving liberty to the applicant to revive his bail

application once all the remaining 'public witnesses' are examined.

Thereafter, on 14.09.2015, considering the communication received

from the Trial Court, this Court was pleased to direct the Trial Court

to expedite the trial so as to conclude the examination of public

witnesses within one month from 22.09.2015, giving liberty to the

applicant to apply for regular bail before the Trial Court, once the

public witnesses are examined. Out of the remaining 2 public

witnesses, three were examined and other three public witnesses were

reported to be 'not traceable'. Therefore, no public witnesses are left

to be examined. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a bail application

before the Trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated

28.10.2015, which is impugned herein.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that FIR in question does

not mention the name of the petitioner and there is a delay of 9 hours

in registering the case. Despite the fact that charge sheet has been

filed and both injured witnesses have been examined and even injured

Dharam Pal (PW-5) did not support the prosecution case, the bail has

been declined to the petitioner. It is further contended that the

prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence even after a

period of three and half years.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the other two

alleged co-accused Rajender Dagar and Padam Dagar were admitted

to anticipatory bail and even another co-accused - Nadeem was

granted bail prior to filing of the charge sheet. Thereafter, the other

co-accused - Udaiveer is also ordered to be released on bail by this

Court. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on

the ground of parity.

7. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no

recovery of any weapon from him or at his instance and he cannot be

assumed to be one of the assailants. It is further contended that

neither the MLCs nor the statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. and

the statement made before the Court reveals that the injured has stated

that the two gunshot injuries were caused by the petitioner or any

particular accused.

8. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the

petitioner is a young boy of 21 years with clean antecedents and he

was undergoing his studies at the time of his arrest, therefore his

whole future will be ruined due to his false implication in the present

case. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of

Delhi and is not a previous convict, and since all the public witnesses

have been examined, therefore there is no likelihood of petitioner's

tampering with the evidence and the trial is not likely to be concluded

for another couple of years, as out of 70 witnesses, only 29 witnesses

have been examined, therefore the petitioner ought to be granted bail

in the aforesaid case.

9. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that the injured - Bharat Singh, in his

statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. specifically named the petitioner

as one of the assailants and his presence is established at the spot as

his palm prints tallied with the chance prints lifted from the scene of

crime. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently

urged that the petitioner in this case be not granted bail as there is

strong possibility of absconding and the fact that Ex.MLA has been

murdered on 29.03.2015 and there is security threat to the other

family members.

10. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as

the rival submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioner is arrested in this case on 03.06.2012 and since then

he is in custody. Perusal of the order dated 12.06.2016 passed by this

Court also reveals that the petitioner was granted liberty to revive his

bail application once all the remaining public witnesses are examined

and subsequent thereto, on 14.09.2015, considering the

communication received from the Trial Court, the Bail Appl.

No.1196/2015 was listed and this Court was pleased to direct the Trial

Court to expedite the trial so as to conclude the examination of public

witnesses within one month from 22.09.2015 and liberty was granted

to the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Trial Court, once

the public witnesses are examined. It is also a fact that three public

witnesses are reported to be 'not traceable'. Therefore, no public

witnesses are left to be examined.

11. Perusal of the record also reveals that the co-accused Rajender

Dagar and Padam Dagar have already been admitted to anticipatory

bail and even another co-accused - Nadeem has been granted bail

prior to filing of the charge sheet. Thereafter, the other co-accused -

Udaiveer is also ordered to be released on bail by this Court.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the

ground of parity. Charge sheet in the present case has already been

filed, and the petitioner is not required for further investigation and

the trial is likely to take time.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

present case, the petitioner - Naveen Dagar is granted bail in the

present case subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of

the Trial Court.

13. Before parting with the aforesaid observations, it is made clear

that any observation made in the aforesaid order shall not affect the

merits of the case.

14. With aforesaid observations, the present bail application filed

by the petitioner stands disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2015 pkb