Delhi High Court
Furkan @ Furki vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 3 August, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: August 3, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 1173/2016
FURKAN @ FURKI
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.A. Rajput, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Amit Verma, Police Station
Gokalpuri, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 03.08.2016
P.S. Teji, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 read with Section 482
of Cr. P.C., the petitioner is seeking bail in a case registered vide FIR
No.154/12 under Section 307/34/120-B of IPC and Section 25/27 of
Arms Act, at Police Station Gokal Puri, Delhi.
2. The present case was registered on the statement of one Asif,
who stated that there was a dispute between his elder brother and the
petitioner and that his elder brother Nazim was booked by the police
station Khajuri Khas in a case under Section 307 IPC on 06.04.2012 at
the instance of the petitioner. It is further stated by the complainant
that his younger brother Kasim @ Khassi was also apprehended in a
case FIR No. 86/11 Police Station Gokalpuri and is in custody since
September 2011. It is further stated that the complainant went to
Karkardooma court for meeting his brothers, and when he reached
behind the court, the petitioner herein threatened him to leave himself
from the parokari of his brothers and further extended threats that if he
does not leave the parokari, then he shall face the dire consequences. It
is further stated that on 30.04.2012 at about 11.30 PM in the night
when he tried to walk in the street, the petitioner alongwith his
associates Guddu, Kasim and Jibbo, the petitioner asked him as to
why he did not leave the parokari of his brothers to which he ignored
and reached to his room. It is further stated that at about 12.30 AM in
the same night, Guddu called him using abusive language and kicked
the door and thereafter he opened the window by using force and
following which, the petitioner demanded the katta from Jibbo and
fired at the complainant. Although the gun shot missed the
complainant but it hit the sister of the complainant on her hands.
Neighbour called at 100 and the petitioner fled away from the spot.
The case was registered against the petitioner as well as other co-
accused persons. Petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2012 and since then
he is in judicial custody. Though the petitioner applied for his bail
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the same has been
declined vide order dated 22.12.2015. Now the petitioner has
approached this court for seeking bail.
3. Mr. S.A. Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2015 and the charge sheet
in this case has already been filed. It is further contended that only 3
out of 20 witnesses have been examined. It is further contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the other co-accused namely Sagir @
Jibbu has already been released on bail vide order dated 14.12.2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Likewise, the other
co-accused Kasim has also been admitted to bail vide order dated
03.10.2012 and Guddu @ Shane Alam has also been granted bail vide
order dated 17.07.2012. The petitioner claimed parity for grant of bail.
According to the petitioner the charge sheet has been filed and nothing
incriminating has been found against him. It is further contended that
the wife of petitioner is also suffering as the petitioner was sent to
judicial custody just after three-four months after solemnization of his
marriage. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in this
case.
4. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that the petitioner has been charged with the heinous
offence and the role attributed to him was of gunshot due to which the
sister of the complainant got injured. Charge sheet has been filed and
the public witnesses are yet to be examined. In addition, the petitioner
is a bad character of Police Station Gokalpuri and as per record 15
criminal cases are found to be registered against him. Lastly, the State
has raised apprehension of prosecution witnesses being threatened, in
case the petitioner is released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner ought
not be granted bail in this case.
5. I have heard the submissions of both the sides and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that the petitioner
has caused the gun shot injury to the victim, therefore he cannot claim
parity with the other co-accused persons in the case, who have already
been granted bail. This court has also perused the status report filed on
behalf of the State, in which it is informed that the petitioner is
involved in 15 other criminal cases and he is a bad character of the
Police Station Gokalpuri. It is further stated that if the petitioner is
granted bail, he may threaten the witnesses and may tamper with the
evidence.
6. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14
SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the basic principles
laid down in catena of judgments on the point of granting bail. The
Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:
9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are]
to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing,
if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
the fact that the trial is at the initial stage and the public witnesses are
yet to be examined and the fact that the petitioner is charged with the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, therefore, looking at the
gravity of offence and the nature and manner in which the petitioner
has committed the crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
8. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facts
emerging from the record culminate into dismissal of the present bail
application. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the
petitioner is dismissed at this stage. However, considering the fact that
the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e.,
11.05.2012, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of this case
as expeditiously as possible.
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. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application, filed by
the petitioner stand disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
AUGUST 03, 2016
pkb
