Delhi High Court
Rohit vs State ( Govt Of Nct ) on 3 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.878/2016
Date of Decision: August 03, 2016
ROHIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K.Duggal, Adv.
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT ) ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.552/2014 under
Section 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station: Mahindra Park, Delhi.
2. The case in the nutshell is that on 16.09.2014 a DD entry was
received at Police Post N.S.Mandi, Police Station: Mahendra Park
regarding quarrel and one person being seriously injured near Adarsh
Nagar Metro Station. The IO reached the spot and on enquiry
informed that the injured had been taken to BJRM Hospital. On
reaching the Hospital, one person was found admitted vide MLC
No.85125/14 who was declared unfit by the doctor to give a statement.
Based on the MLC, DD entry and circumstances FIR in question
under Section 308 IPC was registered. The injured was later referred
to LNJP Hospital and later identified as Lalit S/o Duli Chand on
19.09.2014.
3. During the course of investigation, statement of one Tarun was
recorded who was running a Dhaba. Tarun stated that on 16.09.2014 at
about 9.30 P.M., petitioner, Tatu and Feroz had come to him with
another boy. They were all drunk. The petitioner ordered for food and
told him to bring on the roof. As no service boy was available, Tarun
himself went to the roof to serve the food. Later, petitioner ordered for
10 chappatis, one water bottle and vegetables which the petitioner
himself carried to the roof. At about 11 P.M., he heard some noises
from the roof of the flat. On reaching the roof, he saw that Rohit and
Feroz had caught hold of their fourth friend while Tatu was hitting that
man with bricks and was saying that he had stolen his mobile. Tarun
came down and called at 100 from the phone of one Mithlesh.
4. On 22.09.2014, the victim was discharged from the hospital and
later expired on 24.09.2014. Thus, the Section in the FIR was
amended to 304 IPC. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted
and the doctor opined the cause of death in this case as shock due to
head injury produced by blunt force impact. All the injuries were
stated to be ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. On the basis of post mortem report,
Section 302 in place of Section 304 IPC was added to the case.
5. During the course of investigation, the call detail records of the
mobile phones of the accused were obtained. Their locations were
found at the place of occurrence and at the time of commission of
offence. The present petitioner had made a call to Tarun who informed
the police regarding the crime. The petitioner was arrested on
25.09.2014 and charge sheet was filed in the court. During trial, 12
prosecution witnesses out of 35 have been examined and 23 public
witnesses were still to be examined. One of the co-accused namely
Arif Hussain @ Tatu, who is evading arrest, has been delcared a
proclaimed offender by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of his case has submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case; that the injured had been
discharged from the hospital on 22.09.2014 in conscious, oriented and
stable condition and later expired on 24.09.2014; that the PW-10 who
conducted the post mortem of the deceased opined that the condition
of the patient was stable at the time of discharge from BJRM Hospital
which makes it clear that he was normal at the time of discharge from
hospital; that PW-11, mother of the deceased, has stated in her
testimony that she had talked to her son on 22.09.2014 who had not
given the name of the assailants to her and if the petitioner was
involved in the commission of alleged offence, then certainly the
deceased would have disclosed the name of the petitioner to her
mother; that PW-9/Tarun, the alleged eye-witness, has not supported
the case of the prosecution and his testimony has completely
demolished the prosecution case; that PW-9/Tarun has denied having
witnessed the alleged incident, declared hostile and on cross-
examination, denied having made any statement to the police; that
PW-8 Mithlesh has also turned hostile and on cross-examination
denied having made any statement to the police with respect to the
alleged offence; that there is no other material witness to the alleged
offence which can connect the petitioner to the alleged offence; that as
per DD No.43 PP, dated 16.09.2014, the place of incident is at the
Gate of Tamatar Mandi, Near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station and as per
the prosecution case, the place of incident is the roof of Flat No.1,
Mandola Village, Delhi which castes a doubt upon the prosecution
story; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the
petitioner; that the alleged phone call details do not establish that the
alleged phone number belongs to the petitioner; that all the material
witnesses have been examined and they do not support the prosecution
case and the remaining witnesses are formal in nature; that the
investigation has been completed and the petitioner is no more
required for further investigation.
6. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has opposed the
present bail application on the ground that the petitioner has actively
participated in the commission of a heinous offence of murder; that 23
witnesses including public witnesses are yet to be examined; the call
detail records of the mobile phones of the applicant and other co-
accused show their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of
commission of offence; that the co-accused Arif Hussain @ Tatu has
been declared a proclaimed offender and if released on bail, the
petitioner may tamper with evidence and influence the public
witnesses who are residing in the same locality and there are chances
of the applicant/accused fleeing away.
7. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court observes that the charge sheet has been filed, trial has
commmenced and main eye-witness Tarun who had eye-witnessed the
incident and told the police that on eventful day and time, he had seen
the petitioner and Feroz catching hold of the hands of the deceased
and the main accused, who has been declared PO, hitting the deceased
with bricks, has completely turned hostile. Even the narration of the
story by main eye witness Tarun with respect to the quarrel having
taken place between the accused persons while having meals at the
roof of his dhaba shows no previous enmity or meeting of mind
between the petitioner and the complainant. It is also observed that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.09.2015 and in the considered
opinion of this Court even if further evidence is led, there are bleak
chances of any incriminating evidence cropping up against the
petitioner, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Rohit in the present case
subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with
two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
10. The present application accordingly stands disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016
dm
