Delhi High Court
Naveen Alias Gaurav vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 637/2017
Order reserved on: 2nd November,2017
Order pronounced on:14th November,2017
NAVEEN @ GAURAV ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Salman Hashmi, Mr.
Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Zeeshan
Hashmi, Mr. Nawab Singh & Mr.
Seezan hashmi, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with Insp. Mr. Satyavir Janaula, P.S-
Bindapur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'),
the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 231/2012
under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at
Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi.
2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Neetu, who
stated that at night while he was returning home after meeting his
relative, at about 9:30 pm, he reached at Sanjeev's House on
Bindapur Road where he saw Sanjeev, Rajni Gautam, her huaband
Rajkumar and Pritam standing there and was asked by Sanjeev to
go home. After an hour, he was standing outside his house, Sanjeev
came with a rod with Pritam, one other person who was having
danda in his hand and Rajkumar was standing on the scooter. Then,
they started abusing him and Sanjeev gave him a blow on his head
with the iron rod. His brother came out of the house for his rescue
but he too was beaten up by them and destroyed their Santro car.
They even entered the house and assaulted them. Neetu went from
there and brought PCR from Peer Baba but when he reached there,
no one was there at the spot, only Hariraj was lying unconscious
and blood was fusing out from his head. They took him to the
DDU Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors and even
his Father and Sister-in-law was injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial
custody since more than 4 years; that all the allegations leveled
against the petitioner is false and fabricated and is devoid of any
merit; that no prima facie evidence has been adduced against the
petitioner by the prosecution; that 17 out of 36 prosecution
witnesses have been examined and PW-2/Jai Narayan had not
supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile; that PW-
1/ Neetu had not made any specific allegations against the
petitioner; that there is no chance of the petitioners tampering with
the prosecution evidence. Hence, in the said circumstances bail be
granted to the petitioner.
4. On the contrary, learned APP for the State opposed the bail
application of the petitioner and submitted that serious allegations
have been made against the petitioner; that they have been charged
for offences under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34
IPC for which maximum punishment is death or imprisonment for
life; that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution to a large extent; that keeping in view the gravity of
offence bail shall not be granted to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Upon careful scrutiny of the case, this Court, as per record,
observes that the petitioner herein was one of the accused(s) who
caused grievous injury to Hariraj leading to his death and also
causing injury to his family members. During recording of
evidence of PW-1/Neetu Singh, it was deposed by him that "...I
got up and I along with my parents came to the main gate of our
house and opened the same and there I found that my brother Hari
Raj and accused Sanjeev was holding a sword, accused Deepa
holding a pistol, accused Naveen, Jimmy, Pritam, arvind,
Ravinder, Raju, Rajkumar, his wife Rajni gautam, Bacchan (devar
of accused Rajini gautam), Yogesh, @ Tunna, Chela, Shiva and
some unknown persons were present outside the house...
....At this stage witness has correctly pointed out towards the
accused Arvind, Sanjeev, Raj Kumar, Jimmy, Rajni, Naveen,
Pritam, Bacchan and Mohit @ Shiva who are present in the court
today were present at the spot.." During his Cross- Examination
on behalf of counsel for Naveen, it was stated by him that " It is
wrong to suggest that accused Naveen had got no concern with this
case and he has been falsely implicated. It is wrong to suggest that
on the date of incident accused Naveen was sleeping in his
house..."
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010)
14 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the basic
principles laid down in catena of judgments on the point of
granting bail. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:
"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which
are] to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are: (i) whether there is any
prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and
gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of
the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
7. Further, PW-2/ Sh. Jai Raj Narain has deposed that "...All the 25-
30 persons were trying to pull my son Hariraj outside the house.
Myself, my wife and my younger son Neetu had intervened to save
Hariraj and in the process we all were beaten up by 25-30
persons with rod and sticks and one of the persons was also
holding sword in his hand...
...At this stage, witness has correctly pointed out towards accused
Sanjeev, Naveen, Raj Kumar, Rajni, Pritam, Shiva, Bacchan,
Jimmy and Arvind, as the same persons, who were part of the
mob of 25-30 persons and who were instrumental in causing
injuries to Hairaj, Neetu, Santosh, parveen and witness
himself..."
During his cross-examination by the counsel for Naveen, it was
stated by him that " It is wrong to suggest that on 25.07.2012, at
about 12:00 in the night accused naveen was sleeping in the
house at RZ-167, Roshan Garden, Najafgarh, New Delhi and his
bike was parked outside his house... It is wrong to suggest that
accused Naveen is falsely implicated in this case or that he is not
concerned in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I have
seen accused Naveen for the first time in the court. I had seen him
at the time of incident. PW-3/Smt. Santosh (Mother of the
deceased), also deposed on similar lines as that of above
witnesses and categorically mentioned that the petitioner was
involved in the alleged crime along with the other co-accused. In
the present case, 17 out of 36 witnesses have been examined by
the concerned court and the matter is fixed for further recording
of evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is also involved in two more
FIRs registered at PS, Bindapur.
8. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances as
well as taking into consideration the gravity of the offences
alleged, this court does not deem it fit a case to grant regular bail
to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed.
10. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that
observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit
of the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2017 gr//
