Delhi High Court
Satnam Singh vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 3 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1017/2016
Date of Decision: August 03rd, 2016
SATNAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Manu Sharma, Ms.Ridhima
Mandhar and Mr.Abhir Datt, Advs.
versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha, APP.
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 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR
No.497/2012, under Sections 307/452/365/342/368/395/397/
34/120B IPC, Police Station Mehrauli.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.11.2012 at 11.50 a.m., a
call was received by the police to the effect that a quarrel was
taking place at DLF Farm House No.42, Chattarpur. The said call
was entrusted to ASI Virender Singh who reached the spot and
found the dead body of a male person, namely, Hardeep Singh
Chadha in the guard room. Another call was received by the
police at 12.28 p.m. to the effect that a quarrel was taking place at
DLF Gate Chattarpur which was assigned to SI S.P. Singh who
reached the spot and met ASI Virender Singh there. Statement of
Nand Lal was recorded to the effect that the complainant was
working as driver with Sh.Hardeep Chadha. On 17.11.2012 at
about 11 a.m., the complainant was present at the farm house
no.42, Central Drive DLF, Chattarpur, Delhi. Staff cook Sonu
came running from gate no.3 and informed that 30/40 persons were
breaking the gate no.1 and were trying to enter inside. By the time
complainant came out of his room, he saw 4/5 vehicles having
several persons in them. The complainant knew five persons who
were working as PSO of Ponty Chadha, brother of Hardeep Singh
Chadha. Those persons were including Bisht, Anna and Prembir.
Bisht and Anna caught hold of the complainant and handed him
over to Prembir. Bisht fired two gun shots in the air and threatened
the persons present in the farm house to vacate the farm house.
The persons came in the vehicles and the PSOs were armed with
hockey, stick, sword, dandas and started beating the persons
present in the farm house. They threw everyone from the farm
house and put a lock on the farm house. Those persons made the
complainant sit in a car and took him to farm house no.34, Central
Drive DLF, Chattarpur. The complainant kept on sitting inside the
room and after sometime, one person came from outside and asked
the other three persons to come out and then those three persons
left the room. On seeing the opportunity, the complainant ran
away from there. He also stated that those persons snatched the
mobile phones of the employees. On the basis of statement of
Nand Lal, FIR of the present case was registered.
3. In the meantime, other police officials arrived at the spot.
At 13.20 hours, a called was received from Fortis Hospital that
Gurdeep Chadha @ Ponty Chadha was admitted in hospital as
brought dead. Police officials reached the hospital and on the basis
of the statement of Sukhdev Singh Namdhari, FIR No.496/2012
was registered.
4. During investigation of the present FIR, exhibits were lifted
from the spot. Arms, ammunition, vehicles, cartridges etc. were
seized from the spot. Statements of witnesses were also recorded.
Accused Bhupender Singh Bisht, Rajpal Singh, Anand Singh Bisht
and Uday Raj Singh @ Anna were arrested on 19.11.2012. On
28.11.2012, petitioner/accused Satnam Singh was arrested. It was
alleged against him that he was involved in the conspiracy of
armed trespass along with other employees of Ponty Chadha. It
was also alleged that on the day of incident accused Satnam Singh
was present inside the forcibly occupied farm house and on the
directons of Bhupender Singh, employee of Ponty Chadha, he went
to gate no.3 and later handed over the keys of the locks to
Narender Ahlawat as the gate was locked from both outside and
inside. It is also alleged against him that he brought hammer, paint
and brush to break open the locks of farm house no.42 and to
replace the locks already installed.
5. Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State were heard.
6. Argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/accused is that he was arrested on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused which cannot be relied upon. It was
submitted that there is no material against the accused and the
allegations are incorrect. The only allegation against the petitioner
is that he was guarding the inside lock of the main gate of farm
house no.42, but there is no evidence to show that he was involved
in the conspiracy or its execution. Also, there is no evidence that
the petitioner was present at the scene of crime and participated in
it.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed
the bail on the ground that four prosecution witnesses in their
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the petitioner
that he was member of unlawful assembly, commission of illegal
act of threatening, illegal trespass, snatching of mobile phones and
breaking open the locks. Arms and ammunitions were also used in
the incident and murder of Hardeep Singh Chadha had taken place
due to which charges under Section 302/149 IPC were also framed.
The accused is being tried for a heinous offence of murder and
hatching a criminal conspiracy.
8. From the facts brought to the knowledge of this Court, it is
apparent that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons has
been charged for various offences including unlawful assembly,
attempt to murder, robbery, house trespass, destruction of
evidence, murder and possessing illegal arms. The allegations
leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was found
involved in murder, attempt to murder, robbery, unlawful
assembly, hatching criminal conspiracy and under various other
sections. No comment on the contention of the petitioner that he
was just guarding the gate can be made at this stage as the trial of
the case is still going on.
9. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that out of
174 witnesses, only 23 witnesses have been examined. The
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the
conclusion of trial is likely to take much time as numerous
prosecution witnesses are still to be examined and that the
petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2012.
10. Though it is a matter of record that numerous prosecution
witnesses are still to be examined and the petitioner is behind the
bars for more than 3½ years, but keeping in view the seriousness of
offence and the role attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the
recording of prosecution evidence and conclude the evidence
preferably within a period of one year and if need arises proceed
with the trial on day to day basis.
12. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016
dd
