Ramesh Kumar @ Ramsa vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8467 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : November 06, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2028/2015
      RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMSA
                                                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate


                          versus

      THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                              ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. Vinod Diwakar, 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking bail

in a case registered under FIR No.54/2015 under Section 304 of

Indian Penal Code, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi.

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

report, PCR Call vide DD No.6-A, Police Station Nihal Vihar,

regarding a quarrel at House No. RZ-32, Nihal Vihar, Delhi was

received. After the police reached the spot, they found that one Raj

Kumar got injured. The PCR van took the injured to SGM Hospital,

Mangol Puri. ASI Anil Dutt reached at the hospital, where the doctor

of the hospital opined that the injured was unfit for statement.

Statement of Sh. Ramakant Jha, father of the injured was recorded

regarding the whole incident and a case under Section 308-IPC was

registered against the petitioner. ASI Anil Dutt, seized the exhibits

from the spot and accused Ramesh Kumar @ Ramsa was arrested on

22.1.2015, who confessed his role and got recovered the wooden

stick used in the crime. Unfortunately on 28.1.2015 the injured victim

expired and the charge under Section 304 IPC was added. Post-

mortem on the body of the victim was conducted and the investigation

was taken up by Inspector Ashe Ram. Subsequent opinion on the

injuries was taken by the Investigating Officer from the SGM

Hospital Mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi and exhibits were deposited at

FSL, Rohini, Delhi. After completion of the investigation the charge

sheet was filed in court on 9.4.2015. As per prosecution the case is

pending trial and the next date fixed in the case is 28th October 2015.

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

learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), Delhi which was dismissed

vide order dated 20th July 2015, which is impugned in the present

petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), keeping in

view the gravity of the offence, nature of serious allegations levelled

against the accused/petitioner and the fact that the case is at the initial

stage, where all the material witnesses are yet to be examined,

rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner

and submits that on the basis of the facts as alleged in the FIR, no case

is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last about seven

months. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even as

per the charge sheet, so submitted by the prosecution, it is not a case

under section 304 of IPC, therefore the petitioner ought to be granted

bail in the aforesaid case.

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

petitioner, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, 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. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

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

are clear and specific allegations levelled against the accused and the

death of the deceased victim was due to craniocerebral damage as a

result of blunt force/object diverted upon the head and since the

injuries are ante mortem in nature; MLC and subsequent opinion etc.

are in consonance to the case of the prosecution and the case is at the

initial stage where all the witnesses are yet to be examined.

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

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. After careful scrutiny of the case in hand, and perusing the

status report filed on behalf of the State, wherein it is specifically

mentioned that there is confession of the petitioner of his roll

attributed to him and there is also recovery of wooden stick at his

instance, this court finds that the present case is not a fit case to grant

bail at this stage.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail

application of the petitioner, after considering the matter in totality

and keeping in view the gravity of offence, nature of serious

allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the material

witnesses are yet to be examined. The said reasoning for rejection of

bail in the impugned order does not call for any interference and I

have no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, especially when the charge has been

framed against the petitioner and specific charge is framed under

Section 304 of IPC against the petitioner/accused and material

witnesses are yet to be examined.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner - Ramesh Kumar @ Ramsa at this stage.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 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 06, 2015 pkb