Delhi High Court
Jaffar vs State on 29 February, 2016
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 29th February 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2658/2015
JAFFAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dwarka Sawale, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
Pravin Kumar, Police Station Dabri,
Delhi
Mr.Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate with
Mr.Vivek, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
%
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner
seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 544/2015 under Sections
307/429 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act,
at Police Station Dabri, Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.4.2015, Complainant
- Constable Rakesh, who was the PSO of one Chetan Parkash Sharma,
informed the Duty Officer Police Station Dabri, Delhi that Chetan
Parkash Sharma has sustained gunshot injury. The said information
was lodged vide DD No.34B and the same was entrusted to Sub-
Inspector Ajay Kumar. On receiving the information, Sub-Inspector
Ajay Kumar reached the spot near G-248, Vishwas Park, Raja Puri,
New Delhi where he found a dog was lying dead in front of the house
of Chetan Prakash Sharma, and blood was coming from lower portion
of his body. Sub-Inspector Ajay Kumar reached DDU Hospital and
Chetan Parkash Sharma found to be under treatment and MLC
No.3550/15 was received by him. Accordingly statement of Constable
Rakesh was recorded and the case was registered and transferred to
DIU/SWD.
3. Investigation was conducted by the Crime Branch, Prashant
Vihar, and on 02.10.2015, accused Naveen [email protected] Bablu Dagar was
arrested under Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. During investigation Naveen
Kumar @ Bablu disclosed that in the year 2014, Chetan Prakash
(injured herein) had attacked on him and a case vide FIR No.79/2014
under Section 307 of IPC was registered against Chetan Prakash
Sharma at Police Station Dabri and he was also arrested. For taking
revenge, he met co-accused - Arun Kumar @ Goldy and asked him to
kill Chetan Prakash for which he would pay Rs.20 lacs. It is further
disclosed that he gave Rs.5 lacs to Arun Kumar in advance, who in
turn arranged two shooters i.e. Rahul and Mohd. Jaffar. Pistol and a
stolen motorcycle were also provided by Arun Kumar to the shooters
and he directed them to kill Chetan Prakash.
4. Mr. Dwarka Sawale, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case and in fact on 02.10.2015, at 5.20 p.m., the petitioner was
not present at the place of arrest. However, he was present at IGL
Indraprashtha CNG Station in Sarita Vihar, Kalindi Kunj Road, from
5.09 to 5.20 p.m. which is about 35 Kms away from the said place of
arrest and his presence was recorded in CCTV footage and mobile
location which was preserved by the learned CMM, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi vide order dated 23.10.2015. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner has been arrested on 03.10.2015 on the
disclosure statement of the co-accused and since then he is in custody.
It is further contention by the counsel for the petitioner that nothing
has been recovered from the applicant. Regarding refusal to the TIP, it
is contended that the petitioner has deliberately refused the TIP as the
complainant had seen the petitioner on the first day of arrest on
02.10.2015 and on 03.11.2015, when he appeared before Tis Hazari
Court and Dwarka Court, respectively. It is submitted that the
petitioner has no connection with the co-accused as well as the
complainant of the FIR in question.
5. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner
and it is urged that the MLC of the injured Chetan Prakash clearly
mentions that the injured received a gunshot injury. Post Mortem of
the dog was also conducted and bullet lead was also recovered from
his body and during the investigation, one bullet lead was also
recovered near the spot lying inside the property No.G-280, Ground
floor, Vishwas Park, Rajapuri. The Crime Team seized the bullet lead,
which made a hole in the shutter.
6. The State has also filed a status report on record intimating the
during the investigation, on 02.10.2015, Special Team, Crime Branch
Prashant Vihar received an information that criminals involved in the
present case are coming near Uttam Nagar West Metro station. The
raid was conducted and the petitioner and Rahul were apprehended.
Weapons of offence i.e. two pistols and one stolen motor cycle were
also recovered from the possession of the petitioner and Rahul
respectively. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that the
petitioner had refused to participate in TIP and the petitioner was
identified by the injured Chetan Prakash in Dwarka Court. Lastly, it is
submitted that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the
matter is pending adjudication before the Trial Court.
7. I have heard the submissions of counsel appearing on behalf of
both the sides and gone through the material placed on record.
8. After careful scrutiny of the case, this Court observes that the
name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused - Naveen
Kumar and on information a raid was conducted by the Special Team,
Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar and the petitioner was apprehended.
Weapons of offence i.e. two Pistols and one stolen motorcycle were
also recovered from the possession of Mohd. Jaffar and Rahul
respectively. This Court further observes that the petitioner is in
custody since 03.10.2015, and the petitioner had also refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings. However, the petitioner was
identified by the injured Chetan Prakash. Post mortem was also
conducted on the body of the Dog and bullet lead was recovered.
Apart from the above, one bullet lead was also recovered near the spot
lying inside the property No. G-280, Ground Floor, Vishvas Park,
Rajapuri and the same was seized.
9. This Court also observes that the petitioner was arrested after a
raid conducted by the Special Team, Crime Branch on 02.10.2015 on
an information that criminals involved in the present case are coming
near Uttam Nagar West Metro Station. However, the contention on
behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was present at IGL
Indraprashtha CNG Station in Sarita Vihar, Kalindi Kunj Road, from
5.09 to 5.20 p.m. which is about 35 Kms away from the place of arrest
and his presence was recorded in CCTV footage as well as the mobile
location preserved by the Trial Court, is a matter of trial and can be
proved by leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner.
10. After considering the prosecution case, coupled with the
disclosure statement of co-accused in which he has disclosed the name
of the petitioner in commission of the crime in present case, which is
duly corroborated by the recovery of pistols effected from the present
petitioner and considering the fact that medical report positively
indicates of gunshot injury, may be simple, and it is due to that reason
that the police has added the offences under Section 307 Indian Penal
Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the bail application filed by the
petitioner is dismissed at this stage.
12. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove, shall
not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
P.S.TEJI, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
pkb
