Delhi High Court
Lalit vs State Govt Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2019
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : July 17, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 623/2019
LALIT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan, Mr. H.S.
Singh, Mr. Sachin Choudhary,
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Pradeer
Sharma and Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta,
Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with
Mr. Satish Kain, ACP, Insp. Paras
Nath Verma, SHO, SI Surendra Singh
and SI Amit.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
ORDER
A.K.CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
By the instant bail application, the applicant seeks regular bail in case
FIR No. 163/2018 under Section 307 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS South
Campus. As per the FIR, incident occurred at about 10.40 p.m. on
29.07.2018 near Mother Dairy, Satya Niketan, New Delhi. In the statement
of the injured, he has specifically named the applicant for having fired the
shots with the revolver in the stomach and the thigh. Charge-sheet is stated
to have filed. Ballistic examination of the weapon allegedly used by the
applicant is since received.
2. Mr. Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel strenuously contends that the applicant is
falsely implicated. In his submissions, there was no material with the
prosecution to show that the bullet injuries sustained by the injured were
fired from the revolver of the applicant. In his submissions, the ballistic
report may show that the revolver of the applicant was in working order and
capable of firing, it, ipso facto could not be a reason to assume that the shots
with which the injured sustained bullet injuries were fired therefrom. Ld. Sr.
counsel also strenuously contended that there were serious discrepancies as
regards the actual time of occurrence of the incident and the time, the
applicant visited the spot. In his submissions, as per the CCTV recordings,
the applicant had visited the spot during the period from 10.39 p.m. to 10.41
p.m., whereas, as per the MLC of the injured Lalit Dagar, the incident
occurred at 10.30 p.m. It was also contended that the applicant was a lawyer
practicing at Saket Courts and an active member of the students' union. In
his submissions, the applicant's student's union activities had resulted into
his false implication in few cases, though, he has been a victim by himself,
and, that, as per the prosecution story, besides the applicant, the injured and
others, who are cited as witnesses, were intoxicated at the time of the
incident. It also comes to be contended that the injured himself was involved
in many criminal cases and so were the prosecution witnesses and therefore,
false implication of the applicant could not be ruled out. Thus, according to
him, the prosecution case at a first glance itself was not believable, and,
there were apparent serious inconsistencies and infirmities. Elaborating so,
Mr.Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel strenuously contended that the instant case invited
the application of the principle of bail rather than jail. In support of such
submissions Mr. Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel also placed reliance upon Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.
159/2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10244/2010) decided on
16.01.2012; Zahur Haider Zaidi vs. Central Bureau of Investigations,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 643; and, Vivek Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Cr.A. 2/2000 decided on 01.01.2000.
3. Mr. Srivastava, ld. APP on his part however submitted that the bullets
which caused the injuries could not be retrieved as those remain embedded
in the body of the injured and as per the doctor's opinion, their retrieval may
be dangerous to the life of the injured. In his submissions however, the
injured has specifically named the applicant to have fired with his revolver,
found to be in working order and capable of firing, which, by itself was
sufficient to connect the applicant to the subject offence. Also, in his
submissions, the applicant was involved in various criminal cases and his
release on bail may hamper fair trial.
4. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the injured has
specifically named the applicant for his role. Role attributed to him is of
firing the shots with his own revolver. As per the ballistic report, his
revolver has been found to be in working condition and capable of firing.
CCTV recordings show his presence at the spot, at least, around the time of
occurrence of the incident. What is the effect of any inconsistency as regards
the actual time of occurrence of the incident and the effect thereof, cannot be
a subject, which can be gone into at this stage. Suffice to say, it is required
to be gone into on trial only. Here, it would suffice to say, the little
discrepancy or inconsistency in the timing, is not such which is so glaring
and comes to the aid of the applicant, at this stage. Though, at one stage,
Mr.Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel also contended that during the period the applicant
was an active member of the students' union, he was involved in few cases,
the perusal of the status report reflects that he was involved in diverse
criminal cases year after year, though, acquitted in few. It does not reflect
good of his conduct. Though, the injured by himself is also involved in cases
more than the number of cases in which the applicant is involved, it cannot
be a factor to be weighed to consider the prayer made in the application.
Suffice to say, the instant bail application has to be considered on its own
merits on the basis of the allegations and the material with which the
prosecution has approached the court for trial of the offence. The severity of
the offence, of course, cannot be ignored lightly. In the given factual
conspectus, the criminal antecedents do assume significance and do weigh
the mind of the court that at this stage, his being admitted to bail, may
hamper the fair trial. In the given facts and circumstances, the reliance
placed upon the judgments (supra) is misconceived.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the bail application is dismissed.
6. At this stage, Mr. Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel submitted that it may be
clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the applicant making a
fresh application before the trial court at an appropriate stage. In view
thereof, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not
come in the way of the applicant making fresh application before the trial
court at the stage of consideration on charge or later. Suffice to say, any
such application to be made shall be considered and decided by the trial
court on its own merits. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JULY 17, 2019
rc
