Sidharth Roy vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2056 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: March 10, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 5930/2014
      SIDHARTH ROY                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Mohd. Haneef & Mr. Naveen
                                         Arya, Advocates

                          versus

      STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.           ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for respondent
                             No.1-State with SI Sunil Kumar
                             Mr. Jitnder Kumar, Advocate for
                             respondents No.1 & 2
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner is the complainant, who is aggrieved by impugned order of 14th August, 2014 and 15th October, 2015 vide which respondents/accused- Chetan Chaudhari & Vijay Virdhi have been granted bail in FIR No.475/2011, under Sections 302/307 of the IPC, registered at police station Govind Puri, New Delhi.

On behalf of petitioner, it was submitted that despite gravity of the offence and the incriminating evidence against respondents/ accused, they have been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that trial court vide impugned order has wrongly reached to the conclusion that the offence committed by respondents/accused comes within the

Crl.M.C.No.5930/2014 Page 1 ambit of Section 304 of the IPC, whereas it is a clear case of murder and grant of bail to respondents/accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice. To assert so, attention of this Court was sought to be drawn to the deposition of injured- Siddhartha (PW-15).

This petition is strongly resisted by counsel for respondents/ accused, who submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as it was a case of single blow given by respondent- accused - Vijay Virdhi and respondent-accused- Chetan Chaudhari is a student, who has been falsely roped in this case as there was no blood stain on his clothes and so, role attributed to him of catching hold of the accused is unbelievable on the face of it.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders and the material on record, I find that trial court was not justified in categorically observing that at best offence under Section 304 of the IPC could be attracted. Keeping in view the nature of offence purportedly committed and that recording of the evidence in this case is at the fag-end and that respondents-accused have already remained behind bars for a substantial period, I find no good ground to quash the impugned orders. However, it is made clear that any observation made in the impugned orders shall have no bearing on merits of this case when it is heard at the final stage.

With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2015
r



Crl.M.C.No.5930/2014                                                   Page 2