Dilip @ Mogli vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 7191 Del

$-25

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      BAIL APPLN. 1946/2015

                         Date of Decision : September 21st, 2015

       DILIP @ MOGLI                                 ..... Petitioner

                                  Through:   Mr.A.K. Pandey, Adv.

                         versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                       ..... Respondent

                               Through:      Ms.Manjeet Arya, 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 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1908 for the grant of bail in FIR No.650/2014, Police Station-Preet

Vihar, under Sections 307, 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code,1860 and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act,1959.

2. The allegations levelled against the accused are that on

06.10.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., when the complainant, namely, Rajiv

Jain @ Raju was coming on his motorcycle to his house and reached

near V3S Mall, the petitioner and his associate Yogender Tyagi

stopped the complainant and asked for Rs.8,000/-. When the

complainant refused to give the money, both the accused took out

pistol and the petitioner/accused- Dilip fired a gun shot which hit the

complainant on his thigh. Some unknown person informed the police

on 100 number and the complainant was taken to the hospital by the

police. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR was

registered.

3. During investigation, the crime spot was got inspected through

the Crime Team. The motorcycle of the complainant and one empty

cartridge shell were seized from the said spot. The petitioner/accused

was arrested and he confessed his involvement in the present case.

The pistol was recovered from his possession. The seized articles

were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Co-accused Yogender

Tyagi was kept in Column No.12 as there was no sufficient evidence

against him. 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 judicial custody since 07.10.2014. The petitioner

is innocent and residing with his wife and minor son. The earlier bail

applications moved by the petitioner/accused have been dismissed.

The FSL report has not yet been filed by the prosecution. The

petitioner is the only bread earner in his family. No public witness

was joined in the investigation despite the place of incident being a

busy road.

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

upon the judgment in the case of Nimeon Sangma and others v.

Home Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya and others AIR 1979 SC 1518

in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a petition for

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus observed that there are large

number of cases where detention for considerable periods, without the

trial having even commenced, is being suffered by various persons.

Criminal justice breaks down at a point when expeditious trial is not

attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail.

6. The status report has been filed by the State and it has been

argued by the learned APP for the State that the petitioner/accused is

of bad character and is involved in a number of criminal cases. As

per the report filed by the State, the petitioner is found involved in 22

criminal cases. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the bail

application of the petitioner.

7. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the

petitioner are serious in nature that he fired a gun shot at the

complainant while extorting money from him. The gun shot hit the

complainant's thigh. It is matter of record that the charge sheet has

already been filed.

8. The FSL report is yet to be received and filed. The contention

of the petitioner that the trial is not proceeding further in the absence

of FSL report, is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner/accused on

bail. In view of seriousness of allegations that the petitioner/accused

has made an attempt on the life of the complainant, this Court do not

find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner

cannot get any help/assistance from the judgment in the case of

Nimeon Sangma (supra).

9. Application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner/

accused is at liberty to move the application for the grant of bail after

order on consideration of charge. It is made clear that the

observations made shall not affect the merits of the case.

P.S.TEJI, J

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 dd