Delhi High Court
Mohd. Rizwan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 July, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
+ BAIL APPLN.505/2017
MOHD. RIZWAN ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Maurya, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State
with Inspector Mukesh Kumar, PS
Sangam Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
19.07.2017
BAIL APPLN.505/2017
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of criminal
Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR
No.554/2013 U/s 302/201/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) & 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police
Station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2013 an
information vide DD No. 10A was received in the Police Station New
Delhi, pertaining to a dead body which was found in "Pahari" of J-
Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi near a Government School. SI
Bijender Singh along with Ct. Rajender Kumar reached at the spot
where the dead body of a male in burnt condition was found. There
were injuries found on the head of the dead body. The FIR was
registered U/s - 302/201 IPC. On 25.12.2013, Sh. Banne Singh along
with Sh. Shiv Singh (brother of deceased) came to the police station
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi to inform the police that his brother Satish,
had not returned home since 22.12.2013. Both of them were taken to
AIIMS mortuary where they identified the dead body of Satish.
During investigation, it was revealed that the last call which was
received by the deceased was from a mobile no. 8468903282 which
was in the name of one Ms. Asha who informed that the same was in
possession and use by her son Nathu Ram. On interrogation, Nathu
Ram confessed his guilt disclosing that he had an illicit relationship
with his Aunt which came to the knowledge of his maternal uncle Sh
Banne Singh who thereon gave beating to him and also scolded him.
In order to take revenge of the humiliation, Nathu Ram hatched a
conspiracy with co-accused Arvind, Mohd. Rizwan and deceased
Satish to kidnap the son of Banne Singh. As the deceased Satish
refused to co-operate with accused Nathu Ram he got apprehensive
that Satish may disclose their plan to his maternal uncle and thus he
along with his other associates Arvind and Rizwan committed the
murder of Satish and burnt his dead body by pouring petrol over it.
3. The present petitioner filed an application U/s 439 of the CrPc
for grant of bail before Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Additional Sessions
Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, however the same was dismissed.
4. Mr. R.D. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner has not been involved previously in any criminal
case and bears neat and clean antecedents; that the petitioner is a
permanent resident of Delhi and thus there is no apprehension of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; that as per the
disclosure statement of the petitioner it is categorically mentioned that
he gave one blow by a piece of stone at the back portion of the head of
the deceased; that it is Arvind Chaudhary (co-accused) who inflicted
knife blows on the eyes, neck and stomach of the deceased; that as per
the post mortem no injury is detected on the head of the deceased and
thus no case is made out against the present petitioner.
5. Per Contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned APP for the State
urged that the present petitioner was the one who first hit Satish on his
head with a stone from behind; that the deceased fell down and Nathu
Ram started hitting him with the stone; that Arvind inflicted multiple
injuries on the body of the deceased with a knife; that the mobile
phone of the deceased was recovered from the house of the present
petitioner; that the bail application of the co-accussed Ram Nathu has
been dismissed by this Court.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have also perused the allegations leveled in the FIR, charge
sheet and other documents available on the file.
7. On perusal of the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased
and as per the opinion of the doctor, it shows that the injury number 1
to 11 mentioned in the post mortem report caused by sharp edged
weapon, is possible by the alleged weapon (knife).
8. Undoubtedly, the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Also, the case is pending trial and twelve witnesses out of
twenty six witnesses have been examined. As per the record the
present petitioner conspired with the co-accused to kidnap the son of
Banne Singh; that he was the one who first hit deceased Satish on his
head with a stone from behind and also the recovery of the phone of
deceased from the house of the petitioner clearly indicates that this is
not the appropriate stage to release the petitioner on bail.
9. Moreover, the fact that the offence charged includes murder
under Section 302 IPC having the punishment of death or
imprisonment for life, it is a heinous crime against the society and
therefore in the interest of justice, there is no merit in the contentions
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the application, being
devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
10. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated in
this order has been 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 arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be
done by the Trial court.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
JULY 19, 2017
gr//
