Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 927/2017
ARUN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Simpy Arman Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with
SI Praveen from Police Station- Narela.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
% ORDER
30.10.2017
1. By this second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the
petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 775/14 under Section
302/307/365/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with
25/25(54)/27/29 Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station,
Narela, Delhi.
2. The case in hand was registered on the complaint of the respondent
Ramesh Chand Garg. He stated that on 17.06.2014 at about
6:10 am, he went to his shop and was getting his goods unloaded.
That about 7:40 am Maruti Eeco Car No. DL-8CR-8722 of white
colour stopped near his shop and two boys came out of the car and
forced him to sit in the car at gun point. He further stated that when
he refused to submit, one among the boys fired two gunshots but
the complainant escaped. He also stated that when he was trying to
escape, a third boy namely Praveen S/o Mahabir, who was sitting
inside the car came out and caught him and all the three boys tried
BAIL APPLN. 927/2017 Page 1 of 5
pushing him inside the car. He further stated that while he was
resisting, Vijay, one of the accused, threatened to kill him, and
fired shot with his gun but the bullet passed near complainant's
head and hit Praveen S/o Mahabir, who was holding him. He
further stated that due to this gunshot injury the boy fell down on
the ground and all other fled away in the car.
3. Mr. Simpy Arman Sharma counsel for the Petitioner has contended
that the complainant has nowhere mentioned the name of present
petitioner in the FIR as well as in his statement recorded by learned
trial court; that during evidence the complainant has refused to
identify the petitioner and deposed that he had not seen him prior
to the date of incident; that no recoveries were made from the
petitioner, which proves that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case; that the petitioner was not present at the spot of
incident, when the incident occurred; that the petitioner has already
served almost one-half term of the punishment punishable under
Section 365 of the IPC and thus entitled to be released on bail.
4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the
regular bail application and submits that although the petitioner
was not present at the spot but he played an active role in
commission of crime; that besides the theory of last seen together,
there were other circumstantial evidences against the accused
person; that it was petitioner who had abetted remaining accused
persons to abduct complainant for extortion; it is also contended
that the bail application of the petitioner should be rejected,
keeping in view the gravity of offence.
BAIL APPLN. 927/2017 Page 2 of 5
5. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and
also gone through the contents of the petition and the record of this
case.
6. From the perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner
was not present at the scene of crime. Also, the complainant has
nowhere mentioned the name of the petitioner in the FIR as well as
the statement. No allegations has been raised by the complainant
against the present petitioner and has refused to identify him. The
TIP proceedings are rather dubious as the complainant was first
shown the photograph and later was asked to identify him.
Moreover, co-accused Vijay who fired and the co-accused Praveen
who held the complainant are released on bail.
7. The complainant, during his cross examination, deposed that:
"During investigation of the present case, I had
gone to Tihar Jail on one occasion, where the
police official accompanied me had show one
photograph and had asked me to identify the
person whose name was visible in the said
photograph, from amongst the persons/boys who
shall be show to me inside the jail premises.
Accordingly, I had identified the boy during
judicial TIP held before Ld. Magistrate, on the
basis of said photograph.
I cannot identify the offenders who had committed
the aforesaid offences in my presence even if
shown to me today, as the attack upon me was so
sudden that I was not able to see the faces of the
offenders properly and further due to said sudden
attack, I had lost my mental balance at that point
of time and I was not able to see the face of any of
the offenders properly. I also cannot identify the
said Maruti Eeco vehicle even if shown to me as I
was not able to note down the registration number
BAIL APPLN. 927/2017 Page 3 of 5
of said vehicle as there was mud over both the
number plates of the said vehicle.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to IO that
accused Arun, present in the Court today, is the
same person who had put his tractor at my shop on
rent for loading the goods of my shop or that I
knew the accused Arun prior to the incident of
present case also or that it was informed to me that
accused Arun had conspired with the remaining
offenders in my abduction and to demand ransom
after my abduction.
At this stage, the attention of the witness has been
drawn towards accused Arun, present in Court
today and even after seeing towards said accused,
witness has submitted that he was not knowing the
accused and he had never seen him prior to today
and that he had neither identified the said accused
at the PS on 05.07.2014 nor made any
supplementary statement with regard to accused
Arun before the police."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the
fact that the petitioner is charged under Section 365 IPC and 120B
IPC only and not under Section 302/307 and considering the fact
that he is in custody since 26.06.2014, this court is inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, petitioner is granted bail subject to the following
conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned;
b) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial court.
BAIL APPLN. 927/2017 Page 4 of 5
10. Before parting with the above order it is made clear that the
observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of
the case.
11. The bail application stands disposed of.
12. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master.
13. Copy of the order be also sent to Superintendent Jail, Tihar Jail.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
October 30, 2017
gr//
