Ekant Bansal vs State Gnct Of Delhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 159 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             BAIL APPLN. 105/2021


                                  Date of decision: 15th January, 2021
       IN THE MATTER OF:
       EKANT BANSAL                                          ..... Petitioner
                        Through      Ms. Manika         Pandey Tripathi,
                                     Advocate
                        versus

       STATE GNCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent
                    Through          Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking regular

bail in FIR No.580/2014 dated 13.11.2014, registered in Police Station

Paharganj for offences under Section 302 IPC.

2. Heard Ms. Manika Pandey Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP appearing for the State

on 12.01.2021 and the order was reserved.

3. Ms. Manika Pandey Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested by the police on

15.01.2015, and is in custody for about six years. She states that the co-

accused has been granted bail by the trial court. It is further stated that there

are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses

and in all likelihood the trial would result in the acquittal of the petitioner.

On the other hand, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP appearing for the State

contends that the application for bail which was filed by the petitioner

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi

was rejected on 20.10.2020. She further states that the petitioner is accused

of a very heinous crime namely that of murder, and therefore is not entitled

for grant of bail.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner had been granted an interim bail for a

period of one month by an order dated 08.09.2017. The applicant did not

surrender on the expiry of the interim bail and he was declared a proclaimed

offender vide an order dated 12.04.2018. The petitioner was later arrested in

another case.

5. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegation against the petitioner is

that he alongwith two other persons assaulted the deceased which resulted in

his death. This court is not inclined to enter into the question as to whether

there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses or not

at that stage.

6. The Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, reported

as (2019) 5 SCC 1, has restated the settled legal position about the factors to

be kept in mind for deciding an application of bail and has observed as

under :

21. Before we proceed to analyse the rival submissions, it is apposite to restate the settled legal position about matters to be considered for deciding an application for bail, to wit:

i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

ii. nature and gravity of the charge; iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, para 18 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] .)

7. The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 302 IPC. If

convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC the petitioner will be

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and can even be awarded death

penalty. The petitioner has already abused the bail granted to him and

therefore there is a danger of the accused to abscond if released on bail. The

petitioner was arrested in another offence while on bail which indicates that

there is a danger of his committing other offences if he is released on bail.

8. Keeping all these factors in mind this court is not inclined to grant

bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's bail application is

dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

JANUARY 15, 2021 rs