Delhi High Court
Gulfam @ Vip vs State on 29 April, 2021
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29.04.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 1200/2021
GULFAM alias VIP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Bhatia, Special Public
Prosecutor with SI Manoj
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 92/2020, registered at police
station Dayalpur, Delhi for the offences under Sections
147/148/149/153A/505/436/307/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27/30 Arms Act
on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. He is in custody since 16.03.2020.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. D.K. Bhatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State accepts notice.
4. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken
up for hearing and disposal.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by the present petition,
petitioner is primarily seeking bail on parity with accused Tanvir Malik,
who has already been granted bail in this FIR case by this Court on
04.02.2021 and accused Shah Alam, who has been granted bail on
05.04.2021 by the Court of Sessions as well as accused Nazim, who has also
been granted bail by the Court of Sessions on 28.11.2020.
6. He further submits that petitioner was not initially named in the FIR
in question and prosecution has failed to establish its case, as neither the
CCTV footage nor the call detail record of petitioner proves his presence at
the place of incident. Further submitted that neither the official eye
witnesses nor the independent witnesses, made a PCR call or complaint
regarding the alleged incident and MLC obtained by the prosecution does
not also ascertain the details of gunshot injury received by the injured.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present
petition, however, he is unable to establish the fact as to how the role of
petitioner is different from that of Tanvir Malik. The case of the prosecution
is that the licensed pistol recovered in FIR No. 101/2020, registered at police
station Khajuri Khas, Delhi is the same weapon which has been used by the
petitioner in the present FIR case.
8. Pertinently, no weapon/arm has been recovered at the instance of
petitioner in this FIR case. This court is informed that the FSL report qua
weapon of offence in this case was returned with objection and want of live
cartridges used in the alleged incident and requisite steps regarding the same
are in progress. Prima facie prosecution has not been able to satisfy this
Court as to how the licensed fire arm recovered in FIR No. 101/2020,
registered at police station Khajuri Khas, Delhi was used by the petitioner in
this case. Further, lacune and discrepancies in the investigation carried out in
the FIR in question have already been dealt in detail in the case of Tanvir
Malik [Bail Appln.3864/2020] and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and trial shall take
substantial time.
9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that petitioner deserves to be released on parity with
other co-accused who are on bail in this FIR case. This petition is
accordingly allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith
upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
10. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or
tamper with the evidence and shall appear before the court as and when
directed.
11. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of, while
making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence trial of
the prosecution case.
12. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Trial Court and Jail
Superintendent concerned for information and compliance.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
APRIL 29, 2021
r
