Wasim vs State ( Nct ) Of Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 846 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Judgment delivered on : February 04, 2016
+     BAIL APPLN. 2430/2015
      WASIM                                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr.B.S.Chowdhary, Advocate.

                         versus

      STATE ( NCT ) OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent
                     Through:           Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
                                       Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                       Inspector Karamvir, Police Station
                                       Narela, Delhi.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                    JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of

regular bail in FIR No.531/2012, Police Station Narela, under

Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.09.2012 a PCR call was

received vide DD No.57-A, Police Station Narela intimating that one

person has been shot dead in Keshav Bhawan building. Sub-Inspector

Deepak Sangwan was deputed for necessary action. When he reached

the spot, the injured was removed to SRHC Hospital where he was

declared 'brought dead'. Statement of one Sanjay, s/o Ram Gopal was

recorded. He informed that Wasim s/o Rashid and Wasim s/o

Sherdeen came to Keshav Bhawan alongwith Riyasuddin and Wasim

s/o Sherdeen fired on Riyasuddin. Thereafter both Wasim s/o

Sherdeen and Wasim s/o Rashid fled away from the spot. Crime team

was called, photographs of the crime scene were taken, exhibits were

lifted from the spot and the body of the deceased was sent to BJRM

Hospital for Autopsy.

3. During the course of investigation, statement of Shahid (PW-7)

was got recorded, who informed that Wasim s/o Sherdeen wanted to

purchase one plot which was in the name of his father Riyasuddin but

his father refused to sell the same. He also informed that Wasim s/o

Sherdin had threatened his father with dire consequences. He further

informed that his father had given his mobile phone and Rs.4500/- to

Wasim s/o Sherdin. Though Wasim had returned the mobile phone

but did not return Rs.4,500/-. He further informed that at about 8 PM

on 27.09.2012, Wasim s/o Sherdin and Wasim s/o Rashid came to his

house and took his father with them stating that they will settle all the

money matter. At about 9.15 PM, he went searching for his father and

found that his father alongwith the accused persons was consuming

liquor in Keshav Bhawan, Kureni. At about 10.30 PM, he received a

phone call regarding a fire shot injury to his father. On 30.09.2012 the

petitioner - Wasim s/o Sherdin was arrested by the Crime Branch and

since then he is in judicial custody. During investigation, disclosure

statement of the petitioner was recorded and one pistol, used in

commission of crime, was also recovered at the instance of the

petitioner from the Beriwala Bagh. Exhibits and pistol were sent to

FSL for expert opinion. After completion of the investigation, charge

sheet was filed in Court on 22.12.2012.

4. Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Advocate argued the case of the

petitioner. The main crux of the argument raised by counsel for the

petitioner is that the prosecution has to lead 22 witnesses in its

support, out of which 19 witnesses have already been examined

including all the public witnesses and Investigating Officer and the

other co-accused - Wasim s/o Rashid has already been admitted to

bail vide order dated 11.11.2013. Counsel for the petitioner also relied

upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Gokal

Bhagaji Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 475. Counsel

for the petitioner further contended that the alleged eye witness

Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) has categorically stated in his deposition that

the police has obtained his signatures on blank papers and he has not

seen any incident of the crime. Therefore", the eye witness of the case

has not supported the case of the prosecution and the statement of

Shahid (PW-7) s/o the deceased is a hearsay witness and Ms. Shahnaj,

wife of Riyasuddin (PW-11) is produced as last seen witness in the

present case and even she has not stated anything incriminating

against the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 4 years

and the conclusion of trial may take considerable time. Therefore,

counsel for the petitioner contented that the petitioner ought to be

granted bail in the present case.

5. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions

raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is a

recovery of one pistol used in the commission of crime and that too at

the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner

is involved in 8 criminal cases and there is a strong possibility that he

could again commit the crime in case he is released on bail. At this

stage, counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated by the local police with Police Station Narela and

he has been discharged or acquitted in all the alleged seven criminal

cases.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State.

7. After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and

circumstances of the present case, so far as the contention raised by

counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused Wasim, s/o Rashid has

already been granted bail in the present case, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner cannot claim parity as there is recovery of

pistol used in the commission of crime at the instance of the petitioner

himself. In any case, the charge sheet in the present case has been

filed and 19 out of 22 witnesses have already been examined. The

order dated 13.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner records that the

remaining prosecution witnesses are likely to be examined on the next

date i.e. 3.11.2015.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application filed

by the petitioner is dismissed at this stage.

9. However, it is made clear that the observations made above

shall not affect the merits of the case.

10. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application

is disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 04, 2016 pkb