Shakti Singh @ Sonu vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 3349 Del

#19
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Date of decision: 06.05.2016

+      BAIL APPLN. 917/2016 and Crl. MA No. 7355/2016

       SHAKTI SINGH @ SONU                        ..... Applicant
                     Through           Mr. Suyash Singh, Advocate

                             versus

       STATE                                       ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP SI Rajender Singh, PS Nand Nagri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. No. 7355/2016 (Exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 917/2016

1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 501/2014,

under Sections 307/34 IPC read with Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act,

registered at Police Station- Nand Nagri, Delhi.

2. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 22nd December, 2014

and the trial is underway.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant invites my

attention to the testimony of PW-3 Sheela to urge that she has deposed that

her son including PW-2 Naveen were inside the dwelling house when she

and Rahul (the other injured) received firearms injuries; and consequently,

the testimony of PW-2 Naveen to the effect that he saw the applicant herein

discharging his firearms at PW-3 Sheela and Rahul, cannot be believed.

4. Counsel for the applicant would then urge that the investigation was

shoddy as no bullet shells were recovered from the place where the alleged

incident is stated to have occurred.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned APP appearing on behalf

of the official respondent, would urge that the applicant has been clearly and

unequivocally identified by PW-2 Naveen, which testimony has remained

un-shattered during the cross-examination.

6. It is further urged on behalf of the prosecution that the MLCs qua

PW-3 Sheela and Rahul clearly opine that they suffered lacerated wounds

caused by a firearm.

7. In the present case, it is observed that Rahul, the other victim, who

suffered injuries, is yet to be examined before the Trial Court.

8. Without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, a prima

facie case supported by evidence has been made out to sustain the grave and

serious allegations levelled against the applicant in the present case.

9. Given the conduct of the applicant as deposed to by the witnesses at

the trial, it would not be unreasonable on the part of the Court to assume that

there is a distinct possibility of the public witnesses, who are yet to be

examined, being intimidated by the applicant, in the event the latter is

enlarged on bail by this Court, at this juncture.

10. It is also observed that the Court is not expected to weigh the

testimony/evidence at the stage of considering an application for bail.

11. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances antecedent and

attendant, in my view, the present case is not a fit case for grant of regular

bail at this juncture.

12. The bail application is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 06, 2016 SD