Delhi High Court
Yogesh @ Chintu vs State on 9 July, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2503/2017
YOGESH @ CHINTU ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Dev, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State
SI Ashwani, PS Jyoti Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
09.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks Regular Bail in FIR No.506/2016 under
Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms
Act, 1959.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant received a
call from his cousin that an altercation had taken place between his
family members and two boys. He along with his brother rushed there
and found that two boys were fighting with his cousin. When they
intervened, those two boys left the spot and subsequently came with
7-8 other boys.
3. It is contended that one of the co-accused asked the petitioner to
take out the weapon, on which the petitioner took out the pistol and is
alleged to have fired at the complainant. Because of intervention of
the brother of the complainant, the bullet did not hit the complainant
and he was not injured. Subsequently, again it is alleged that the
petitioner attempted to fire another shot but the gun jammed. It is
alleged that the petitioner as well as some of the other co-accused
were apprehended and handed over to the police.
4. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.01.2017.
5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that admittedly no injury has
been sustained by the complainant or any of his relations on account
of any conduct of the petitioner. He further submits that the other co-
accused are already enlarged on regular bail.
6. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ballistic
Division dated 28.07.2017 has been produced in Court. With regard
to the cartridge, alleged to have been recovered from the gun, which is
alleged to have been used in the incident, the report is that no opinion
could be given whether the cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' had
been fired through the improvised pistol or not. Further with regard
to the handwash/swab stated to be of the accused, the FSL report
states that no opinion can be given on the same due to insufficient
data.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case as also on
perusal of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out
a case for grant of regular bail.
8. Subject to petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not
required in another case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which
may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
July 09, 2018
st
