Ram Dayal vs State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8383 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : November 05, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2011/2015
      RAM DAYAL                                          ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr. C.M. Thapliyal and Mr.S.P. Paul,
                                      Advocates.

                         versus

      STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                               ..... Respondent
                     Through:         Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State

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

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the petitioner for seeking

bail in the case registered vide FIR No.382/2014 under Section

186/353/307/399/402/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section

25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Saket, Delhi.

2. Mr. C.M. Thapliyal, Advocate appears on behalf of the

petitioner and submits that no incriminating article was recovered

from the possession of the petitioner or at his instance and the

petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.06.2014. It is further

contended on behalf of the petitioner that investigation of the case is

complete, the charge sheet of the case has been filed and all the public

witnesses including the injured has also been examined and the

petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation or

inquiry.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FIR was

registered on the statement of ASI Ramesh Chander and even in his

testimony, he has not assigned any specific role to the

accused/petitioner for commission of offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC.

4. It is further contended that the injury on the person of the

complainant (PW-4) was opined as simple blunt, however in the cross

examination, the complainant deposed that he did not receive any

injury. The testimony of the complainant is not corroborated with the

medical evidence. The complainant has made improvements in his

statement before the court.

5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the public

witness namely Sameer Verma (PW-2) did not support the

prosecution case on material points. He has made comprehensive

improvements in his examination-in-chief over his statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

6. It is informed that the petitioner had also moved the bail

application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-(2) (South),

New Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2015, which

is impugned in the present petition. While impugning the said

judgment, it is urged that even in the impugned order, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge did not find any ingredient of Section 307

of IPC.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the order

dated 7th August 2014 passed by the learned Additional Session

Judge-3, South District, Delhi, whereby the co-accused - Harish has

already been granted bail case.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of

Delhi, has clean past antecedents, no criminal case is pending against

him and he is not a previous convict therefore the petitioner ought to

be granted bail in the aforesaid case.

9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 (South), New Delhi,

keeping in view the audacity and temerity of the accused persons,

rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

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

petitioner, Ms.Manjeet Arya, 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. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

while rejecting the bail to the accused has rightly observed that the act

of accused persons cannot be separated as it was night time and

attempt was made and the victim was assaulted. Some of the accused

persons exhorting each other and they acted in unison reflecting that

the applicant had a common intention and found that it was a conjoint

assault by the accused persons and the petitioner too was a party to

the same.

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

report, the case is pending trial before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, charge has been framed against all the accused and 11

prosecution witnesses out of 28 witnesses, have been examined; the

petitioner/accused in the present application is resident of District

Madhubani, Bihar and the apprehension regarding his jumping the

bail is expressed on behalf of the State. It has been apprised that the

next date before the trial court fixed in the case is 17.11.2015

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

the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State and on perusal of the impugned order and the MLC of the

complainant Ramesh, which does not indicate any injury on the body

of the person, and the fact that the co-accused Harish has already been

granted bail in this case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner - Ram Dayal. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused - Ram

Dayal 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.

13. 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 05, 2015 pkb