Delhi High Court
Sagar vs State on 29 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1414/2017
Order reserved on: 21st November, 2017
Order pronounced on:29th November, 2017
SAGAR ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikrant Goyal, Advocate with,
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar and Mr. Ajit
Singh Advocates.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State with Insp. Sheelawant
Singh, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar,
New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as
'Cr.PC.'), the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No.
469/2014 under Sections 302/307/147/148/149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') registered at Police
Station Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi. Status report is on record.
2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Bijender
who stated that on 30.07.2014 at about 09:30 p.m. a quarrel had
taken place between him, his family members on one side and his
neighbours namely Suresh, Ramesh and Naresh, their family
members on the other; that during the said quarrel Suresh
alongwith his brothers Ramesh and Naresh and wife/Preeti started
BAIL APPLN. 1414/2017 Page 1 of 5
manhandling him; that thereafter the complainant's brother in-law's
son Ravi/deceased intervened alongwith his brothers Sachin,
Naveen and Shyambir, to pacify the matter but in the meantime
accused Suresh called his other associates namely Rahul, Sandeep,
Vikrant Birla, Sagar and Mukesh, who arrived at the spot with bats,
knives and iron rods; that accused Sandeep caught hold of Ravi
from behind whereafter accused Rahul stabbed Ravi with a knife
and Sandeep rotated the knife and pulled it out after which blood
started oozing out from Ravi's body; that all the accused persons
fled away from the spot of incident after which the police was
reported and Ravi was taken to the hospital where he was declared
"brought dead";that the accused persons also inflicted injuries on
complainant's son Vineet and his relative Sachin; that hence a
complaint was lodged against all the accused persons namely
Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant Birla, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh
Kumar, Suresh, Ramesh Kumar and Preeti.
3. Mr. Vikrant Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case; that the petitioner had no reason to commit any
offense against the deceased or his family; that the prosecution has
produced no independent witness which creates a doubt on the
genuineness of the prosecution case; that PW-4 PW-5, PW-15 and
PW-16 have not supported the case of the prosecution; that there is
an inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses
although they were all present in the hospital on 30/07/2014; that
out of total of 31 prosecution witnesses, 21 witnesses have been
BAIL APPLN. 1414/2017 Page 2 of 5
examined and now only formal witnesses are left to be examined;
that as the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of all the
material witnesses has been concluded there is no chance of the
petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence; that hence in
the said circumstances bail be granted to the petitioners.
4. Per Contra, Mr. Akshai Malik, learned APP for the State opposed
the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that serious
allegations have been made against the petitioner; that he has been
charged for offences under Section 147/148/149/302/307 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 must not be granted to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
6. The complainant, in his statements recorded during his
Examination-In-Chief, has attributed specific role to the petitioner
whilst deposing as under:-
"Sandeep had joined Suresh and his associates namely
Naresh and Ramesh along with his associates namely
Rahul, Vikrant, Mukesh and Sagar. Suresh was having
lathi, Rahul was having a knife, Vikrant, Mukesh and
Sagar were having Dandas.................
Accused , Sagar, Vikrant and Mukesh were armed
with wooden logs/dandas and gave beatings to Vineet
and Sachin. Sachin had received injury on his head
and Vineet received injury on the left hand."
BAIL APPLN. 1414/2017 Page 3 of 5
7. The complainant's son Vineet Kumar also deposed on similar lines
and stated as under:-
"Suresh also called 3-4 associates namely Rahul,
Vikrant, Sagar, Sandeep and Mukesh. Accused Rahul
was having knife, accused Sandeep, Sagar, Vikrant
were having Dandas and accused Suresh was having
a Lathi. Accused Sagar was having iron rod..............
I was trying to save Ravi, in the meantime accused
Sagar inflicted injury to me on my left hand by iron
rod........"
8. Further, victim Sachin, present at the spot, deposed as under :-
"At this stage witness pointed out towards the accused
Suresh, Sagar, Ramesh and Naresh, who had given
beatings to me by using wooden logs/ dandas."
9. Reference may be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in, 2004 (7)
SCC 528,wherein the principles of granting or refusing bail have
been laid down :
"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise
its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail
a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was
being granted particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-
application of mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other circumstances,
the following factors also before granting bail; they
are:
BAIL APPLN. 1414/2017 Page 4 of 5
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge."
10. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the
case; specific allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner; the
evidence recorded till date wherein the petitioner has been assigned
a specific role in the commission of the alleged offence; the gravity
of the alleged offences and severity of the punishment prescribed
in law, I find no sufficient ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed.
12. 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 29, 2017
/gr//
