Rohit vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 734 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                       Judgment delivered on 04.02.2020
+      BAIL APPLN. 925/2019
       ROHIT                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana and
                                       Mr. Neelaksh Sharma,
                                       Advocates.
                          versus
       STATE                                  ..... Respondent
                          Through      Mr. Raghuvinder Verma
                                       APP for State along with SI
                                       Mohd. Kafeel, PS Mukherjee
                                       Nagar.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                              JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the bail application u/s. 439

CrPC filed by the petitioner Rohit in FIR No. 472/2016 u/s.

397/394/34 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar.

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

that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

3. As per the prosecution, on 09.5.2019 at about 2.15 am. The

complainant Vishal Beniwal was sleeping in his house. He woke up

after hearing some sound and saw that two boys were committing theft

in his house. Complainant tried to open the door to apprehend them

but door was bolted from outside. Later on, he found that one

Cylinder, micro wave oven (Samsung) and two pairs of sports shoes

of Puma and three water taps of his house were stolen. He made call at

100 number and made complaint to the police. Police came and

opened the house and registered his complaint but nothing happened.

Thereafter on 11.05.2016 at about 2.30 am, he again heard some

sound outside his house. Complainant came out and found that

accused was trying to remove his water motor. The accused started

running from there and complainant ran behind him and caught him.

Accused, thereafter attacked the complainant with a poker. Meanwhile

two associate of accused who were sitting in the street also attacked

the complainant with iron rod and caused injury on the head of the

complainant and on the left hand as well.

4. It is submitted that charge under section 397/394/34 was framed

against the petitioner and co-accuseds by the Ld. Trial Court on

22.11.2016. Co-accused Anil was granted bail on 22.11.2016.

Thereafter another co-accused Sachin was also granted bail by the Ld.

Trial Court.

5. It is submitted that prosecution evidence was started on

27.05.2017 and till now, out of 14 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been

examined including the complainant Vishal Beniwal as PW-8. It

would take long time to conclude the trial and petitioner is in custody

for the last two years and ten months. It is, therefore, prayed that

petitioner be released on bail, in the interest of justice.

6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the

petitioner Rohit was acquitted in FIR No. 257/2016 u/s. 392/411/34

IPC, PS Timarpur wherein the 'Sua/ Poker' was recovered. He has

further argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses particularly in the statement of PW-8 recorded

by the Ld. Trial Court. He further submitted that MLC of the

petitioner does not support the prosecution version that the

complainant has sustained injuries due to attack by the 'Poker'.

7. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the

ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Complainant has been examined as PW-8. He has fully supported the

prosecution version. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail

application.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon bail orders

titled 'Mohan Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl.

No. 688/2019' & Sahil Dahiya vs. State, Bail Appl. No. 907/2015'. I

have perused the orders on bail applications. The same are

distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated therein.

9. I have considered the rival submissions. It is settled law that at

the stage of bail the evidence need not be discussed, examined or

analyzed in detail. However, since the Ld. counsel for the petitioner

has insisted and relied upon and tried to point out the contradictions in

the statement of PW-8, this Court has perused the statement of PW-8

who is complainant in the case. Prima facie the complainant has

supported the prosecution version. PW-8 i.e. the complainant Vishal

Beniwal has deposed that on the night of 09.05.2016 when he was

sleeping in his room, at about 2.15 am, he had heard some sound and

saw that two young boys were present in verandah and they were

trying to steal something. He tried to open the door but it was bolted

from outside. His gas cylinder, microwave oven, two pairs of shoes

and water taps were taken away by them. On the night of 11.05.2016,

he again heard the sound from outside his room. He woke up and saw

that one boy who had committed theft of his articles on 09.05.2016

was there and trying to remove water motor. He had chased that boy

and caught hold of him. The said boy had stabbed him with 'Poker'.

While he was scuffling with the petitioner, the other co-accuseds had

appeared and they had started beating him. As discussed earlier, prima

facie PW-8 has given a consistent version of the incident. The

contradictions, if any, appearing on record will be examined by the

Ld. Trial Court at the appropriate stage after scanning the evidence in

detail and no mini trial can be conducted at this stage at the time of

deciding the bail application.

10. So far as acquittal of the petitioner in FIR No. 257/2016 is

concerned, the petitioner/ accused is acquitted in the said case

because of contradictions appearing in the prosecution version.

What will be the effect of acquittal on the present case will also be

considered by the Ld. Trial Court at the appropriate stage. At this

stage, as discussed earlier, evidence cannot be analyzed and

examined in detail.

11. Perusal of the evidence reveals that petitioner as well as all

the accused persons were identified by the complainant in the

Court and petitioner has categorically stated that petitioner had

inflicted injuries upon him with the help of 'Poker'. Evidence

further reveals that complainant had identified the petitioner in

Tihar Jail during TIP and he had also identified the weapon of

offence.

13. In view of the above facts appearing on record and

particularly the statement of PW-8 and also keeping in mind the

nature of offence, no grounds for grant of bail are made out at this

stage. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is

clarified that nothing stated herein will tantamount to expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

BRIJESH SETHI, J FEBRUARY 04, 2020 (AP)