Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sonu @ Dinesh @ Dhaka vs State
2019 Latest Caselaw 6567 Del

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 6567 Del
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2019

Delhi High Court
Sonu @ Dinesh @ Dhaka vs State on 16 December, 2019
$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of Decision: 16.12.2019
+       BAIL APPLN. 2864/2019
        [email protected]@DHAKA                        ..... Petitioner

                           Through:     MR. M.P.Singh along with
                                        Mr. Yatharth Sinha, Mr. Girik
                                        Tolani and Mr. Bharat Misra,
                                        Advocates.
                           versus

        STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)..... Respondent

                           Through:     Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
                                        APP for respondent/State.
                                        Insp. Rajesh-R.P.Bhawan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                              JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed on

behalf of the petitioner [email protected]@Dhaka under section 439

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 876/2017 u/s.

302/308/323/148/149/34 IPC, PS Ranhola.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the

ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

Bail Appl. no. 2864/2019 Page no.1 of 4 All the material witnesses and eye witnesses have already been

examined and from the deposition of all the material/eye witnesses,

nothing material has come out to connect the petitioner with the

alleged offence. Petitioner has clean and clear antecedents and he is

in JC since 05.04.2018. It is, therefore prayed that petitioner be

released on bail.

3. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail petition on the

ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in

nature. It is further submitted that petitioner along with his

associates had committed murder of deceased Chandresh Ram. Ld.

APP, has therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail application.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. On the complaint of

one Sh. Prabhaskar S/o late Chanderesh Ram, present FIR bearing

no. 876/2017 was registered. In his complaint, the complainant has

alleged that on 27.12.2017, Pappu @ Jaswant along with Deenu @

Dhakka, Deepak @ Pandit, Sandeep Pandit, Neeru, Mannu and Kalu

were going towards their vehicle parked in a vacant plot in front of

complainant's house after consuming alcohol. Complainant was

standing in front of his house along with his neighbour. All the

Bail Appl. no. 2864/2019 Page no.2 of 4 accused persons started misbehaving with them and when they

objected, all of them started beating them with baseball and wooden

sticks. In the meantime, other family members of the complainant

reached to the spot so as to save them but all the accused persons

started beating his family members and Chandresh Ram received a

fatal head injury. As per post mortem report, the cause of death was

'Crenio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the

head, injury no. 1", sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of

nature. Accused Pappu @ Jawant was arrested on 28.12.2017 and

weapon of offence i.e. wooden stick was recovered at his instance.

Accused Sonu @ Dinesh @ Dhaka was arrested on 05.04.2018.

NBWs were issued against co-accused Sandeep Sharawat, Neeru,

Deepak Pandit, Sandeep Pandit, Deepa @ Deenu @ Dekka, Manjeet

Dabas @ Kalu and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been

initiated against the six accused persons. The allegations levelled

against the petitioner are serious in nature. Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner has however argued that most of the material witnesses

have been examined. This court is, however, of the opinion that at

the time of deciding the bail application, the Court should not hold a

Bail Appl. no. 2864/2019 Page no.3 of 4 mini trial and analyse the evidence. Three witnesses of the alleged

incident namely Sh. Deepa Chand, Smt Usha Devi and Smt Kismati

Devi are yet to be examined. Perusal of their statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that they are the eye-witnesses of

the incident.

5. Keeping in view the serious nature of the offence and the fact

that three eye-witnesses are yet to be examined and at the stage of

bail, the court cannot hold a mini trial and appreciate and analyse

the evidence in detail which will be done by the Ld. Trial Court at

the appropriate stage, no grounds for bail are made out at this stage.

The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of

accordingly.

                                                BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 16, 2019
Ak




Bail Appl. no. 2864/2019                                  Page no.4 of 4
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter