Delhi High Court
Shahil Khan vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 January, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20.01.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 2678/2019
SHAHIL KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through:- Mr. N.U. Ahmed, Advocate
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through:- Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for the
State with Inspector Mukhtiar
Singh, P.S.: South West
District and Inspector Rajvir
Singh, P.S.: Chhawla
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s. 439
CrPC by the petitioner Shahil Khan in FIR No. 174/2016 under
Section 302/34/120B IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, P.S.: Chhawala.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground
that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Petitioner is
in judicial custody since 29.04.2016. It is further submitted that other
co-accused persons namely Akash Shawarat, Sumit Kumar,
Diksha, Manish Singh @ Dheele, Sandeep Kumar and Shamsuddin @
Shamsu have been discharged by the Ld. Trial Court on 24.04.2018
and the co-accused Lalit Dahiya who is the main accused, has already
been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.12.2018. The bail
application moved by the petitioner before the Learned Trial Court Sh.
Vivek Kumar Gulia, ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act),
Dwarka Courts (SW), Delhi was dismissed vide order dated
05.01.2019. It is submitted that alleged recovery of pistol for the
petitioner is nothing but an eye wash which has been planted just to
implicate the petitioner. It is further submitted that six witnesses out of
fourty-three witnesses have turned hostile. Eyewitness PW-1 Sandeep
Shokeen and PW-2 Kulbant Singh as well as public witness Prakash,
did not support the version of prosecution in there examination and no
witness have stated anything incriminating against the petitioner. No
further investigation is required against the petitioner. It is, therefore,
prayed that petitioner be released on bail in the interest of justice.
3. Ld. APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the
ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The
weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol used for committing
murder of deceased Monika was recovered from his possession
alongwith seven live cartridges. Petitioner Shahil Khan has refused to
participate in TIP proceedings. Call detail records of petitioner's
mobile phone shows that the petitioner and co-accused Lalit Dahiya
contacted each other twenty-nine times before the murder of the
deceased. It is further submitted that material witnesses are yet to be
examined and only six witnesses out of total fourty-three witnesses
have been examined yet. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the
bail application.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. Out of 43 witnesses
only six witnesses have been examined. The evidentiary value of the
these six witnesses, will be considered by the Ld. Trial Court at the
appropriate stage. Prosecution has still to bring other evidence on
record by examining the witnesses. It is a settled law that evidence
cannot be discussed in detail at the time of consideration of bail
application since no mini trial can be conducted at that stage. The
weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol used to commit murder of
deceased Monika was recovered from the possession of the petitioner
along with seven live cartridges. Petitioner Shahil Khan has refused
to participate in TIP proceedings. As per call detail records of
petitioner's mobile phone, he and co-accused Lalit Dahiya (husband
of the deceased) had contacted each other twenty-nine times before
the murder of the deceased. In view of the above discussions and also
keeping in view the serious nature of the offence, no grounds for grant
of bail are made out at this stage. The bail application, is therefore,
dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
JANUARY, 20, 2019
Amit
