Delhi High Court
Ram Gopal @ Rahul @ Theka vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 2 September, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 02 September, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 479/2016
RAM GOPAL @ RAHUL @ THEKA
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nazoo Sharma and Mr. Bharat
Bagga, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 02.09.2016
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 364/2014 under
Section 302/201/120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station
Kanjhawala, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the victim Laxman (now
deceased) was husband of accused Shanti Devi. Shanti Devi and
accused Panna Lal were having illicit relations between them which
was not to the liking of deceased Laxman. On 14.05.2014 at 2.05 AM
at CNG Pump Swada, body of Laxman was found and a case under
Section 302 of IPC was registered. The body of the deceased could not
be identified at the time of identification.
3. The prosecution case is that the brother of the deceased
Kanhaiya Lal had stated to the investigating agency that on
12.05.2014 a fight took place between Shanti Devi and Laxman and
on 13.05.2014 Shanti informed him that deceased Laxman had gone to
Uttam Nagar, whereas he was sent by accused shanti to Ballabhgarh to
accused Panna Lal on the pretext that Laxman was to collect
Rs.20,000/- from Panna Lal. The prosecution case is that the deceased
was killed at Ballabhgarh/Faridabad and his body was left at Sawda.
When Laxman left Delhi for Ballabhgarh, Santi Devi made a call from
the PCO booth to Panna Lal informing him about leaving the deceased
from Delhi to Ballabhgarh. The call was for 1029 seconds.
4. During investigation, PCO Booth owner Bhagwati identified
the accused shanti Devi as the person who made the call at that time.
From the body of deceased one bus ticket was recovered and the
concerned bus owner confirmed that deceased travelled to Ballabhgarh
from Delhi on the date of incident. As per prosecution case, in the
murder of the deceased, Santro Car used by the petitioner - Ram
Gopal was used wherein the deceased was strangulated in the car with
some ligature material and was also hit with a brick on his head to
confirm his death.
5. As per postmortem report of the deceased, he died in the night
intervening 13 and 14.05.2014 due to asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem strangulation. Accordingly, charges under Section
302/120B/201 of IPC were framed against all the accused persons
vide order dated 08.11.2015.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.08.2014 and the bail
application filed before the Special Judge, NDPS/ASJ, (NW) has been
rejected mainly on the ground that the murder of the deceased was
conducted in the car used by the petitioner and certain blood stained
were collected for scientific analysis. It is further contended that the
other two co-accused persons who have been alleged of having illicit
relationship with each other, have been granted bail on the same facts
and same set of evidence, therefore the petitioner ought to be granted
bail on parity.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner. It is submitted that the murder of deceased was conducted
in the car used by the petitioner and certain blood stains were collected
for scientific analysis. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on
different footings than that of the other co-accused.
8. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I
have also perused the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge thereby rejecting bail to the petitioner.
9. This court observes that the charge sheet has been filed and all
the accused persons are charged with the offence punishable under
Section 302/201 of IPC; the other co-accused - Shanti Devi and Panna
Lal have been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
on the same set of facts and evidence recorded in this case.
10. After going through the impugned orders as well as the status
report filed on behalf of the State, what this court needs to consider is
the role attributed to the petitioner in the present case. This court notes
that the other co-accused of the case are already been released on bail
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner has sought
parity with the co-accused.
11. This court is conscious of the fact that the charge sheet has been
filed and the matter is pending adjudication before the Trial Court and
at this stage, this Court need not go into the factual matrix of the case
as well as the other relevant evidence in this case. This court notes
that the other co-accused persons - Shanti Devi and Panna Lal have
already been released on bail on the same set of facts and evidences.
There are a large number of cases of this Court in which the question
of parity in the matters of bail has been considered earlier and the
weight of judicial authority is in favour of the principle of parity being
followed. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner - Ram Gopal @ Rahul @ Theka on the ground of 'parity'.
12. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner - Ram
Gopal @ Rahul @ Theka is allowed and he is directed to be released
on bail subject to furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
13. 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.
14. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application, filed by
the petitioner stand disposed of.
15. Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2016
pkb
