Delhi High Court
Satbir Rana vs State on 1 April, 2019
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 01st April, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 246/2019
SATBIR RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Anjana Ahluwalia, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
Mr. Pradeep Teotia and Mr. Siddharth
Chaturvedi, Advocates for the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner alongwith others, including his son Nikhil Rana,
is facing prosecution in sessions case (no.1422/2016 - old no.09/15)
arising out of the reports (charge-sheets) under Section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) submitted upon
conclusion of investigation of first information report (FIR) no.507/14
of police station Ghazipur, and the charge for offences under Sections
302, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
for substantive offences under Sections 201 and 202 of IPC. The case
relates to homicidal death (murder) of one Vinod, by fire-arm injuries
inflicted at about 9.00 p.m. on 21.07.2014 in the area of Toll tax,
Ghazipur, NH-24, Ghazipur. It may be mentioned here that according
to the case for prosecution, Nikhil Rana, son of the petitioner herein, is
the person who used the firearm to commit the murder, the weapon
alongwith certain ammunition statedly having been recovered from his
possession, at his instance on 15.10.2014, from its place of
concealment in an almirah at the second floor of house no.B-63, Gali
no.6, Gazipur Dairy Farm, where both, the petitioner and Nikhil Rana,
were residing. The other persons facing trial include Brijesh, Rupesh
and Parth Sharma.
2. Parth Sharma was enlarged on bail by this court by order dated
05.07.2018 on his bail application 251/2018. Brijesh was released on
bail, on parity with Parth Sharma, by order dated 01.11.2018, on his
bail application no.2607/2018. Rupesh was also released on bail, on
parity with Brijesh, by order dated 25.01.2019, on his bail application
no.2839/2018.
3. The petitioner herein had earlier moved application for bail
(no.1701/2018) which was withdrawn, liberty having been taken to
approach the Court of Sessions by a fresh application, earlier request
to that effect having been declined. The trial court has not granted bail
to the petitioner, his application having been lastly dismissed on
28.11.2018.
4. As per the prosecution case, Nikhil Rana had shot Vinod Kumar
to death on account of past enmity arising out of conduct of the said
victim it having enraged his father (the petitioner) on account of he
(the deceased) having displaced him from the "pradhani" of Ghazipur
Dairy Farm and having caused him huge monetary loss by dealing in
the sale-purchase of a property described as bearing no.C-42,
Ghazipur Dairy Farm, known as "Kasturi Ki Dairy", inspite of being
asked by the petitioner to desist from indulging in any such
transaction. It may be mentioned here that there is evidence available
to show that both the petitioner and the deceased were engaged in the
business of property dealing. There is also evidence adduced to show
that on account of the said past enmity, the petitioner had extended
threats to the victim, his conduct after the offence of murder also
having reflected connection between the said event and the deal
concerning "Kasturi Ki Dairy", suspicion in this regard having been
raised on account of he having confronted Sanjay, the elder brother of
the deceased on such lines.
5. Reliance is placed on Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 15
SCC 529 and decisions of learned single judges of this court in Pankaj
@ Mintu vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2016 SCC Online Del 2328 and
Rahul Tongaria vs. NCT of Delhi & ANR, 2016 SCC Online Del 4501
to seek parity with the three accused persons who have been enlarged
on bail. The submission is unacceptable as there is no parity. A role
was attributed to the said three persons as to they having aided and
abetted Nikhil Rana in carrying out the murder. In contrast, the
motive for the crime is traced to the petitioner, the father of the
assailant, respecting which the prosecution case also depends on
material showing efforts to destroy evidence rendering him not only a
co-conspirator but also an accessory after the fact.
6. The learned senior counsel was at pains to argue that the case
against Nikhil Rana is not worthy of reliance. She made a lengthy
presentation to point out some dis-similarities in the evidence of the
prosecution respecting the events in the run up to the murder. Her
submission was that the theory of the deceased having offered an
affront to the petitioner on account of "Pradhani" is misplaced since
the petitioner had been a candidate only for the office of Pradhan of
the Panchayat of a village in Baghpat (U.P.) in the year 2010, there
having been no occasion for him to fight such election in the area of
Ghazipur, even otherwise there being no office of Pradhan in any
Panchayat of Ghazipur, it being under the control of a municipality.
The learned counsel for the complainant, who also appeared to oppose
the application, assisting the public prosecutor, however, clarified that
it is not the office of Pradhan of a Panchayat for which there had been
a dispute between the deceased and the petitioner. It was submitted
that the allottees / occupiers of different plots of land in the Ghazipur
Dairy farm area, developed by the State agencies, had propped up an
association of which a Pradhan would be elected, the petitioner
having earlier occupied the position of strength in such capacity, he
having been displaced eventually by the deceased, this having invited
the wrath of the former.
7. The learned senior counsel argued that the deal over the plot of
land described as "Kasturi ki Dairy" had led to two transactions being
indulged in, one concededly brokered through the deceased, the
petitioner being constrained to file a civil suit against the party with
which the agreement to sell had been entered. These submissions, it
may be observed, only reinforce the prosecution case that there had
been a cause for dispute between the petitioner and the deceased, the
stakes apparently being quite high.
8. Be that as it may, given the nature of evidence which is in the
process of being presented before the trial court, it will be
inappropriate in these proceedings for this court to start parallel
scrutiny, particularly a meticulous one to examine and comment upon
the credibility or otherwise of the prosecution case or the evidence led
in its support. Suffice it to state that the case involves charge of
heinous and grave offences. There is substantive material presented
to show not only privity but also and, more importantly, complicity on
the part of the petitioner, the motive of crime being traced to him. In
these circumstances, no case for release on bail at this stage of the
criminal trial is made out.
9. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 01, 2019
yg
