Birju vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1477 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2020
+      BAIL APPLN. 339/2020
       Birju                                          ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. M. Naushad, Advocate.
                           versus
       STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                   ..... Respondent
                           Through      Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for
                                        State.
       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 moved by the petitioner Birju in FIR No. 508/2020 u/s. 302/34

IPC, P.S. Jaitpur.

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

that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is

submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.10.2017.

Chargesheet in this case has already been filed and all the material

witnesses have been examined. Nothing incriminating has appeared on

record against the petitioner.

3. Ld. ASJ has not appreciated the fact that the deceased Govind

entered into the house of Dheeran to commit theft and he was caught

red handed and the alleged beatings were given in self defence. It is,

therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail in the interest of

justice.

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

ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The

petitioner has been charged u/s. 302/34 IPC. It is submitted that during

course of investigation statement of eye-witness Anil was recorded

who has categorically stated that petitioner was involved in the murder

of the deceased. It is submitted that charge has been framed but the

witnesses are still to be examined. In case, the petitioner is released on

bail, he can threaten the complainant and other witnesses. He has,

therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5. I have considered the rival submissions. There are allegations

against the petitioner that he along with his brother Dheeren caused

the death of deceased Govind who had entered in their house with

intention to commit theft. Perusal of statement of the eye-witness Anil

recorded u/s. 161 CrPC on 03.10.2017 that the deceased Govind has

died because of the beating given by the co-accused Dheeren as well

as his brother i.e. the petitioner. In his statement recorded u/s. 164

CrPC it has come on record that the petitioner was also involved in the

commission of the offence. The witness has deposed that on receipt of

telephone he had reached the residence of Dheeren where deceased

was lying and his hands and legs were tied and he was bleeding. He

asked Dheeren (co-accused) to call the police but he said that police

would be called in the morning. Petitioner was standing outside the

house along with other persons. The witness had heard the voice of the

deceased from inside the house asking Dheeren to release him and he

would return all the articles. Thereafter petitioner was seen going

inside angrily and had closed the door. Thereafter deceased was again

heard as saying that he would return all the articles and he be,

therefore, released. Thereafter petitioner had come out. The above

facts appearing on record shows the active role being played by the

petitioner. Moreover, charge under Section 302/34 IPC has been

framed against the petitioner as well as his brother Dheeren. In view

of above allegations which, prima facie, reveal active involvement of

petitioner in beating of the deceased due to which he died and further

keeping in view that there is apprehension that petitioner can influence

the witnesses, no grounds for grant of bail to the petitioner are made

out at this stage. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J MARCH 04, 2020 Amit