Delhi High Court
Amit @ Vicky vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 April, 2018
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.04.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 301/2018
AMIT @ VICKY ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr S.K.Nanda
For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
SI Karamvir, PS Narela.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
03.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has filed the
status report in the Court today. The same is taken on record.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.775/2014 under Sections
302/307/365/34 IPC & 25/25(54)/27/29 Arms Act, Police Station Narela.
3. The allegations against the petitioner - Amit @ Vicky are that the
petitioner along with co-accused Vijay, two friends both named Praveen,
Jaspreet and Arun sought to abduct the complainant. It is alleged that the
deceased Praveen caught hold of the complainant while co-accused Vijay
fired on the complainant. The bullet missed the complainant and hit
Praveen, who was holding the complainant, on his forehead, who expired.
Jaspreet is alleged to have been sitting in the car at the time when the
alleged incident took place.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioner had brought all of them in his
car. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has
already been examined and has failed to identify the petitioner. It is further
submitted that Vijay, who is alleged to have fired the pistol, has already
been admitted to regular bail on 20.05.2016, as he was also not identified
by the complainant.
5. Further, it is contended that the co-accused Arun was granted bail by
order dated 30.10.2017 and Praveen had been granted bail on 04.05.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not
been named in the FIR and even in the statement given by the complainant,
he has failed to identify the petitioner.
7. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has been implicated on the
basis of the last seen together theory as the petitioner had picked up the
deceased from his house. It is contended that both the petitioner and
deceased were working in the same office and as a matter of routine,
petitioner used to pick him up the deceased daily to go to work.
8. It is contended that the petitioner has been incarcerated since
23.07.2015.
9. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, who submits that though the complainant has
failed to identify the petitioner, there is evidence against the petitioner, of
last seen together.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was not named in the
FIR and the complainant has failed to identify the petitioner at the time of
his testimony which was recorded before the Trial Court. Further, keeping
in view the fact that the main co-accused - Vijay, who is alleged to have
fired the weapon, has also been admitted to bail and the other co-accused
Arun and Praveen have also been admitted to bail, without commenting on
the merits of the case, perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has
made out a case for grant of bail. The petitioner has been in custody since
23.07.2015.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to petitioner
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not do
anything, which shall either prejudice the trial or prosecution witnesses.
The petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the Trial
Court. The petitioner shall also not change his permanent address without
intimating the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also report to the concerned
Police Station on first Saturday of every month.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL03, 2018
'Sn'
