Kamal vs State Of Nct (Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8263 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : November 02, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1044/2015
      KAMAL                                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr.Tushar Sinha and Mr.Pankaj
                                       Sinha, Advocates.

                          versus

      STATE OF NCT (DELHI)                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through:           Mr.G.M.Farooqui, Additional Public
                                       Prosecutor for the State.

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

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present bail application under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for seeking bail in a case registered under FIR No.766/2013

dated 26.10.2013, under Section 308/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police

Station Govindpuri, Delhi.

2. The State has filed its status report and according to the status

report the FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Bhajan Singh

S/o Shri Surjeet Singh R/o House No.503, Sardar Mohalla,

Tughlakabad Village, New Delhi and during the investigation two

accused Honey and Rohit were arrested and the petitioner was

absconding. It was only after issuance of non bailable warrant against

the present petitioner/accused on 26.10.2013, the petitioner was

arrested on 10.09.2014 by the local police of P.S. Badarpur, Delhi. It

is further submitted in the status report that as per SCRB report, the

petitioner is involved in many other criminal cases. It is further

submitted that only two witnesses have been examined and the next

date fixed before the trial court is 15th, 16th and 18th January 2016.

3. The petitioner had also moved the bail application before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-02/SE/ND, which was dismissed

vide order dated 24th February 2015, which is impugned in the present

petition. Rejection of the bail was primarily on the ground that the

statement of complainant was yet to be recorded. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge-02/SE/ND did not find any ground to take

a different view than the view taken by the learned predecessor of the

court on 3rd January 2015.

4. Mr.Tushar Sinha, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner

and submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner/applicant is in custody since 08.03.2015. Counsel for the

petitioner further contended that the other co-accused namely Honey

and Rohit have already been granted bail vide order dated 27.11.2013

and on the ground of parity the applicant/petitioner should have been

granted bail in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner further

contended that there are no specific allegations against the applicant

and the complainant is not having good relations with the applicant

and out of the grudge and to take revenge from the applicant, the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for the

petitioner also took the ground of delay of one month and fifteen days

in registration of the FIR.

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

petitioner, Mr. G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge is a well reasoned order and does not call for any

interference by this Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State further contended that the present petitioner/ accused was

absconding in the present case and he could only be arrested after

obtaining non-bailable warrant against him. Therefore, the

applicant/petitioner is not entitled to seek parity to the bail granted to

the co-accused.

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

petitioner/applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

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

as the submissions made by learned APP for the State and on perusal

of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner - Kamal. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused Kamal is

admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed not to influence the

prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not leave

the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.

7. With aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.

However, it goes without saying that any observation made in the

aforesaid order shall not affect the merits of the case.

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