Delhi High Court
Ajay Srivastava vs State Of N C T Of Delhi on 7 March, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07th MARCH, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 616/2022
AJAY SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hari Shanker, Advocate
versus
STATE OF N C T OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
with SI Prinsh PS Farsh Bazar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.830/2015 dated 02.10.2015
registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar (East) for offences under Section
302, 34 IPC.
2. The facts in brief leading to the present FIR are as follows:-
i. On 01.10.2015 information vide DD No.30 A was received
wherein the caller informed that one person has been shot and
two persons who were riding bike fled the spot.
ii. On receiving the phone call, the police reached the spot. They
found the deceased lying unconscious and was bleeding heavily
from his head. The injured was taken to Hedgewar Hospital
wherein he was declared brought dead.
iii. The FIR was recorded on the statement of one Bharat Singh
who had been despatched to the spot vide DD No.30 A for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.03.2022
11:48:55
offence.
iv. Investigation commenced. Accused, namely, i) Azam S/o
Karam Ali R/o 749/4, Rehman Building, West Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi; ii) Ajay Srivastava S/o Jamuna Prasad R/o JB-
6/62, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi; iii) Munawar Ali S/o
Maqsood Ali R/o Pili Mitti, Opposite Mazar, Janta Colony,
Welcome, Delhi; iv) Danish S/o Muslim R/o 65-C, Second
Floor, Chanakya Marg, Chhajju Gate, Valkem Delhi; v) Shivaji
@ Chunnu S/o Late Rakesh R/o Balmiki Basti, Near Railway
Line, Shahdara Mandi, Delhi were arrayed as accused on the
statement of two eyewitnesses Sandeep @ Dheele and Anil
Kumar @ Kale.
v. The accused Azam, Ajay Srivastava i.e. the petitioner herein,
Munawar Ali and Danish could not be arrested because they
were evading arrest. The proceedings under Section 82 CrPC
were initiated. The petitioner herein was arrested on
20.04.2016.
vi. The petitioner has filed several bail applications. The petitioner
approached this Court by filing BAIL APPLN 4020/2020 which
was rejected by order dated 15.03.2021. This Court found that
the wife of the deceased had stated that she and her husband
were facing threats for their lives before the incident dated
01.10.2015 took place. This Court also found that the petitioner
has been convicted in FIR No.138/2012 registered at Police
Station Barakhamba Road for offences under Section 392, 34,
120B IPC and FIR No.25/2011 registered at Police Station
Welcome for offences under Section 307, 34 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.03.2022
11:48:55
vii. Material on record also indicates that the petitioner had been
granted interim bail vide order dated 05.04.2021 by this Court
in BAIL APPLN. 1015/2021 on the ground that the petitioner
has to undergo an operation. The petitioner had also been
granted bail on 20.07.2021 for a period of seven weeks for
undergoing the surgery.
viii. On 17.12.2021, this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner
on the ground that he is getting married on 20.12.2021. The
petitioner did not get married.
ix. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for grant of
regular bail by filing an application bearing SC ID No.773/2016
and the same was rejected by an order dated 09.12.2021 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
x. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail.
3. Mr. Hari Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner was taken into custody on 20.04.2016. It is stated that the
petitioner has been granted bail by this Court on various occasions and he
has never abused the liberty granted to him. He also contends that though
the wife of the deceased Shyam Sundar stated that her husband had been
threatened by accused Azam and few others but she did not take the name of
the petitioner herein. He further states that one of the eyewitnesses has
turned hostile. He states that the prosecution witnesses have been examined
and no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioner further in
custody.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP contends that the
petitioner is accused of a very serious offence. He states that the petitioner
has already been convicted in FIR No.138/2012 registered at Police Station
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.03.2022
11:48:55
Barakhamba Road for offences under Section 392, 34, 120B IPC and FIR
No.25/2011 registered at Police Station Welcome for offences under Section
307, 34 IPC. He, therefore, states that looking at his antecedents, he can
threaten witnesses and has to propensity to commit further crimes and bail
ought not to be granted to the petitioner.
5. Heard Mr. Hari Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit
Chadha, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.
6. The petitioner is accused of an offence of murder. The material on
record shows that accused Azam was not in good terms with the deceased
and on 01.10.2015 when the deceased and his wife had gone to the court to
attend some proceedings, accused Azam and his associates had threatened
the deceased with the dire consequences. Material on record also discloses
that there are two eyewitnesses namely, Sandeep @ Dheele and Anil Kumar
@ Kale. Sandeep @ Dheele was examined on 06.12.2018 and in his
examination-in-chief, he had stated that on 01.10.2015 when the deceased
and his wife and the witnesses had gone to Karkardooma Court to attend
Court proceedings, accused Azam and his associates Chunnu, Shivaji,
Danish, Munawar Ali and the petitioner herein had come to the court and
they have threatened the deceased. He had stated that on the evening of the
same day, he along with eyewitness Anil Kumar @ Kale and the deceased
were in Bhopura to visit a property dealer, on receiving a call from one
Durgesh, the deceased wanted to meet Durgesh. It is stated that when the
deceased and the witnesses went near Jaat Dharamshala, Geeta Bhawan to
meet the said Durgesh who had given the call, accused Azam came there
along with Munawar, Danish, Chunnu, Ajji i.e. the petitioner herein. It is
stated that the petitioner caught hold of the deceased and accused Chunnu
handed over a pistol to accused Azam and he shot the deceased because of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.03.2022
11:48:55
which the deceased passed away.
7. This Court vide its order dated 15.03.2021 in BAIL
APPLN.4020/2020 rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the
ground that he has already been convicted in FIR No.138/2012 registered at
Police Station Barakhamba Road for offences under Section 392/34/120B
and FIR No.25/2011 registered at Police Station Welcome for offences
under Section 307, 34 IPC.
8. The Apex Court in a number of judgments has laid down the factors
which has to be taken into account for grant of bail (i) nature and gravity of
offence, (ii) probability of influencing witnesses, (iii) tampering of evidence,
(iv) evading the administration of justice, (v) role alleged against the
accused (Refer Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC
598).
9. Applying the said rationale of the Apex Court, the petitioner is alleged
of serious offence of murder. Eyewitnesses, namely, Anil Kumar @ Kale
has categorically stated the role of the petitioner in the murder of the
deceased Shyam Sundar. The petitioner already stands convicted for
offences under Section 392, 34, 120B, 307 IPC. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner at this juncture.
10. The petition is dismissed with the above observations along with
pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MARCH 07, 2022
hsk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.03.2022
11:48:55
