Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 976/2017
RAMESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State.
BAIL APPLN. 1336/2017
VIKRANT [email protected] ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior advocate,
with Ms. Megha Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for State.
BAIL APPLN. 1496/2017
SANDEEP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anirudh Yadav, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through:
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 30.10.2017
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the petitions filed under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), whereby the petitioners seek grant of
Regular Bail in FIR No. 469/2014 under
Section 147/148/149/302/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station BHD
Nagar, New Delhi.
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
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 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. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and are
in judicial custody since 31.07.2014; that all the allegations
levelled against the petitioners are false and fabricated and are
devoid of merits; that no prima facie evidence has been adduced
against the petitioners by the prosecution; that all the public
witnesses have been examined in the present case who have not
supported the case of the prosecution; that PW-13, PW-15 and PW-
16 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile; that out of total of 31 prosecution witnesses, 21
witnesses have been 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sandeep has further contended
that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner co-accused
Rahul inflicted a knife blow upon the deceased/Ravi and the
petitioner rotated the said knife and pulled it out. However PW-
3/Dr. Parvinder Singh who conducted the post mortem of the
deceased clearly stated during his cross-examination that there is
no such injuries on the deceased body which reflects rotation of
weapon of offence. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that
the petitioner is suffering from depression and neuro problems and
he has been roped in the present case with ulterior motives by the
police officials; that the petitioner is having clean antecedents and
there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice; that hence his
prayer for regular bail be granted.
5. On the contrary, learned APP for the State opposed the bail
application of the petitioners and submitted that serious allegations
have been made against the petitioners; that they have 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 petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Upon careful scrutiny of the case, this Court observes that the
complainant, in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegations against each
petitioner thereby attributing them specific roles in the commission
of the alleged offence.
In respect of petitioner Ramesh Kumar, the complainant deposed
during his Examination-in-Chief that "During the course of
abusing, Suresh called his brothers Ramesh and Naresh. Therafter,
they all i.e. Suresh, Ramesh and Naresh started beating myself and
my son Vineet......Naresh was having base ball danda..Naresh and
Ramesh also caught hold of Ravi and Suresh was instigating
them......"
In respect of petitioner Vikrant Birla, the complainant deposed
during his Examination-in-Chief that "Accused Sagar, Vikrant and
Mukesh were armed with wooden logs/dandas and gave beatings to
Vineet and Sachin....."
In respect of the petitioner Sandeep, the complainant deposed
during his Examination-in-Chief that "In the meantime, Sandeep,
brother in law of Naresh also joined them.....Sandeep was having
one iron pipe.... They all give beatings to myself, my son Vineet and
my relatives i.e. Ravi, Sachin and Navin....accused Sandeep who
had caught hold of Ravi from behind his neck, pulled the knife from
the stomach of Ravi and blood started oozing out from his
stomach.........."
8. The version of the complainant is further corroborated by the
testimonies of victim Vineet/PW-5 and Sachin/PW-6 and also the
Post-Mortem Report/PMR No.184.14 of the deceased wherein the
doctor has opined that "Death in this case is due to hemorrhagic
shock following injuries descried in PMR. Injuries No. (1) and (2)
are caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries No.(3) and (4) are
caused by hard blunt object. Injury No.(1) is sufficient to cause
death ordinary cause of nature." Further the weapon of offence i.e.
knife was recovered in respect of which the doctor/ Dr. Parminder
Singh, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, stated that
"the injuries mentioned no.1 & 2 as mentioned in the PM report,
could be possible with the knife produced in the court."
9. Therefore from the observations so far made and other evidence
placed on record, clear collusion between the three petitioners and
other accused persons in commission of the alleged offence is
established. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the
medical and scientific evidence point towards direct involvement
of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime.
10. 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 in this case to grant regular
bail to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the petitions 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
OCTOBER 30, 2017 gr//
