Vikas @ Vicky vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 7061 Del

$-43
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      BAIL APPLN. 1496/2015


                                  Date of Decision : September 17th, 2015


       VIKAS @ VICKY                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.Vargisha Kochar, Adv.


                         versus


       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                           ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for the
                                        State.

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

       P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of

bail in FIR No.69/2012, Police Station Samaipur Badli, under

Sections 302, 394, 397, 411 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act.

2. The allegations levelled against the accused are that he along

with his co-accused persons committed the murder of one Sonu. It is

further alleged that at the time of incident, the petitioner was armed

with country made pistol and fired a gun shot upon the deceased. On

the day of incident, robbery was also committed from the spot.

3. On the basis of statement of an eye witness, FIR of the present

case was registered and during investigation, petitioner and co-

accused persons were arrested. After conclusion of investigation,

charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner is in incarceration since 25.02.2012. Since all the

public witnesses including the eye witness have already been

examined, there is no chance of influencing the public witnesses or

tampering with the evidence. It is further argued that the co-accused

Ajay @ Rinku and Ajay @ Chhota have already been granted bail. It

is further submitted that the trial is likely to take long time and no

purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars for

an indefinite period.

5. In support of the arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied

upon judgment in case of Sumer Singh (Sh.) v. State, 2008 I AD

(Cr.) (DHC) 1 in which the petitioner was granted bail while

observing that where the prosecution case appears to be weakening,

justifying grant of bail, limited exercise of prima facie evaluating the

evidence can be carried out by the Court. Next judgment relied upon

is in case of Vankat Salum and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.),

MANU/DE/1480/2009 in which the appellant was acquitted while

giving him benefit of doubt while observing that the eye witness did

not support the case of prosecution completely.

6. In the present case, the bail application of the petitioner was

dismissed by the Trial Court on 06.06.2015. There is no force in the

ground taken by the petitioner that since the co-accused persons have

already been granted bail, he is also on the same footing. As per the

charge sheet and the evidence recorded, the role attributed to the

petitioner and co-accused persons is different. It is specifically

alleged against the petitioner that on the day of incident, he was

armed with country made pistol and fired a gun shot upon the

deceased which resulted into his death. The co-accused persons who

have been granted bail were the co-conspirators in the crime

committed.

7. So far as the other ground regarding period of incarceration of

the petitioner is concerned, the mere fact that the petitioner has

undergone a certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle

him to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to

be concluded in the near future by itself would be sufficient for

enlarging the petitioner on bail, keeping in view the gravity of

offence. This view gets strength from Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias

PapuYadav v. CBI through its Director, AIR 2007 SC 451.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any assistance from the judgments

in case of Sumer Singh (supra) as the facts and circumstances of the

present case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

The petitioner also cannot get any help from the judgment in case of

Vankat Salum (supra) inasmuch as the said judgment is on merits of

the case and not on the subject of entitlement of bail.

8. In view of seriousness of allegations and the gravity of offence

and specifically the role attributed to the petitioner in the incident are

concerned, this Court do not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner

on bail.

9. Application is accordingly dismissed. However, the Trial

Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial preferably

within a period of six months.

P.S.TEJI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 dd