Muzammil Qureshi vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 9529 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             Judgment delivered on : December 22, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2368/2015
      MUZAMMIL QURESHI
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                        Through:     Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate


                        versus

      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                           ..... Respondent
                        Through:    Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional
                                    Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                    ASI Kanshi Ram, Police Station
                                    G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                 JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. To impugned the order dated 08.10.2015, whereby the

application of the petitioner seeking regular bail was rejected by

learned District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the

present petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.), and seeks bail in case

registered as FIR No. 444/14 under Section 307/34 of IPC at Police

Station GTB Enclave, Delhi.

2. The prosecution case, which was registered on the complaint of

one Sushilan Vasudevan. The allegations levelled against the

petitioner are that he had fired a gun shot on the waist of the

complainant on 17.07.2014. Thereafter, he was taken to GTB Hospital

and in the night after receiving DD No.30A ASI - Kashni Ram

alongwith Constable Sumit Kumar reached the hospital and obtained

MLC of the injured, where doctor confirmed A/H/O gunshot and

stated that Sushilan is fit for statement and nature of injury as fire arm

injury. Thereafter, it came to the notice that the injured was taken to

Max Hospital and due to shortage of bed, his relatives took him to

Pushpanjali Hospital. After reaching the Pushpanjali Hospital, he

came to know that injured had been taken to O/T. The eye witness to

the incident could not be found by the ASI and after getting copy of

report and MLC, he registered FIR under Section 307 of IPC and sent

the report to Police Station though constable Sumit Kumar. Four live

cartridges of the pistol and car of the injured were seized and the

inured was declared fit for statement on 20.07.2014. The injured

narrated the whole episode stating that at about 9.20 PM, in front of F

Pocket Market two boys placed their bike in front of his car and told

that he had struck against the bike and one boy tried to enter his car

from left side, who was pushed by the complainant but another boy

from the right side, put his hand in the glass window and fired with a

pistol on the right side of his back. Thereafter, both the boys ran away

on their bike. Injured also informed that during this incident no

robbery or snatching was committed. During investigation, ASI seized

bullet extracted from the body of injured and sample seal and blood

stain shirt and vest and hand wash and Maruti Zen No. DL-2CS-0898

were also seized.

3. Accused was searched and the petitioner - Muzammil and

Pappu were arrested in FIR No. 1086/14 under Sections

186/353/332/224/307/34 of IPC and under Sections 25/27/57/59 of

Arms Act, Police Station Nand Nagri, where they confessed that they

committed the present offence and after producing the said accused in

Court they were arrested and TIP was fixed after producing them in

Court in muffled face and on 09.12.14 in Jail No.8/9 the TIP was

conducted in which accused Pappu was not identified but the

petitioner was identified. During investigation, the petitioner

confessed and disclosed that he threw the pistol in a drain.

4. Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, counsel for the petitioner contended that

the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the alleged

offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further

submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2014. It is

further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation of

this case has been completed and the police has filed the charge sheet,

the case has already been committed and now fixed for cross-

examination of the complainant. It is further contended that the

complainant was totally in a drunken condition and he was not in his

proper sense but due to false implication by the police, he was got

identified in TIP and that too after 4 months and 22 days.

5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the

offences like the present one, there must be motive for committing

such offence and in the whole prosecution version, no motive has

been attributed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young

boy of 27 years, only bread earner of his family, permanent resident

of Delhi, and that there is no chance of his absconding or fleeing from

justice. It is further contended that the charge sheet in this case has

been filed and the trial may take considerable time to conclude,

therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in this case.

6. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised by

counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the examination of the

injured is completed and he has fully supported the prosecution case

and the cross-examination is still in progress. Since the charges

framed against the petitioner are of grievous nature and he has also

been charged with the same offence in another FIR, therefore, the bail

application of the petitioner be rejected.

7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and have gone through the impugned order and the material

placed on record.

8. Upon careful scrutiny of the case what this Court observes is

that the petitioner is also arrested in another FIR No. 1086/2014 under

Section 307 IPC, the cross-examination of the complainant is under

process and that the complainant has supported the prosecution case.

This Court also observes that counsel for the petitioner also narrated

some discrepancies in the prosecution case, which however, are not

the subject matter of the present bail application and the same can be

adjudged during trial by leading cogent evidence. At this stage, what

this Court is required to see, is the fact that whether a prima facie case

has been made out by the petitioner for grant of bail in this case or not

and after going though the contents of the FIR and the examination

and part cross examination of the complainant, this Court does not

think it fit to grant bail in the present case, at this stage.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the present bail application filed by the

petitioner lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it

goes without saying that anything observed in this petition, shall not

have any bearing on the merit of the case during trial.

10. With aforesaid directions, both the bail applications stand

disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2015 pkb