Delhi High Court
Neeraj Kumar Chopra vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 22 August, 2023
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd August, 2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023 & CRL.M.A. 18668/2023, CRL.M.A.
18076/2023 & CRL.M.A.18667/2023
NEERAJ KUMAR CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with
Insp. S.P. Samaria and SI Opendar
Singh, P.S. V.K. South.
Mr. Varun Goswami, Mr. Sahil
Agarwal and Mr. Hritik Chaudhary,
Advocates for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The is the second application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 („CrPC‟) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.
132/2019 dated 03.03.2019 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(„IPC‟) and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at PS
Vasant Kunj. The previous application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 29.04.2021.
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
2. The contents of the FIR No. 132 dated 03.03.2019, as recorded by Sub-
Inspector Om Prakash are reproduced in vernacular as under:
"ब्यानअजाने Sh. Mayur Digani S/o Sh. Vishan Das Digani R/o
H.No.-1015/E, Ward No-7, Mehrauli, New Delhi -30, Age-26yrs #
9910529720. ब्यान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर सहपररवार रहता हूँ
और मैं Mehrauli में Fruit Juice िी दु िान िरता हूँ | Mohit Arora िो मैं
बचपन से जानता हूँ , पहले वह हमारे घर िे पास Mehrauli मेंही अपने
पररवार िे साथ रहते थे तथा SDM Office Mehrauli में Paper work िा
िाम िरते थे । िरीब दो साल पहले Mohit Arora अपनी Family िे साथ
Shanti Kunj, Krishna Green Apartment में Shift हो गये । मेरा अक्सर
उनिे घर पर आना जाना रहता था। मैं हर्ष िो बचपन से जानता हूँ तथा वह
हमारा common friend है । Mohit िा Mehrauli में Power House िे
नाम से Gym है तथा मै Daily उसिे Gym मे Exercise िरने जाता हूँ तथा
वहीीं पर मेरी Daily मुलािात Mohit से होती थी। जो िल Mohit से मेरी
मुलािात Gym में हुई ओर उसने प्रोग्राम बनाया िी था कि शाम िो गाडी
में बैठिर घू मते हुए शराब कपएीं गे और मौज मस्ती िरें गे। जो िल कदनाूँ ि
2/3/2019 िो समय िरीब 9:00 बजे रात मैने मोकहत िो फोन किया और
उसिो िहा कि तू जल्दी से Jain Mandir, Mehrauli आजा मैं Scooty
लेिर वही पहुूँ चता हूँ और उसिे बाद हम गाडी में ही बैठिर शराब
पीये गे। इसिे बाद समय िरीब 9:30 बजे Mohit अपनी गाडी लेिर Eco
Sports लेिर Jain Mandir पर पहुीं च गया और मैं भी Scooty लेिर वही ीं
पहुीं च गया और मैंने अपनी स्कूटी वही Park िर दी और उसिी गाडी में
बैठ िर Golden Dragon, Hauz khas पहुीं चे जहाूँ से हमने एि Black &
White शराब िी बोतल खरीदी और वहाीं से चल कदए इसिे बाद Maliviya
Nagar से Chicken खरीदा और कफर गाडी में ही शराब पीते हुए Chicken
खारहे थे । इसी दौरान समय िरीब 10:30 बजे रात मेरे दोस्त हर्ष िा फोन
आया और उसने पू छा कि तु म िहा हो तो मैं Mohit िे साथ गाडी में हीं , हम
गाडी में बैठिर शराब पी रहे हैं जो उसने िहा कि तु म Chhattarpur,
100 Foota Road पर Hukka Bar है इस पर आ जाओ, साथ में बैठ िर
हुक्का पीयें गे। जो समय िरीब 11:00 बजे हम दोनोीं Hukka Bar में पहुीं चे
जहाूँ पर Harsh िे साथ पहले से ही उसिे दो दोस्त Sultan व Bablu भी
मौजूद थे कजनिो मैं पहले से जानता हूँ । जो वहाूँ पहुीं चने पर पता चला कि
Hukka िे Caal खत्म हो गये हैं । इसिे बाद Mohit ने िहाूँ कि मेरे घर पर
चलते हैं वहाूँ Terris पर बैठिर Hukka पीयेगे व शराब पीयेगे। इसिे बाद
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
हम पाीं चोीं समय िरीब 11:45 बजे रात Mohit िे घर पहुीं चे जोकि Guard
Prem ने दरवाजा खोला और हमपाीं चो Terris पर पहुीं चे जहाीं पर ताला लगा
Mohit िे नौिर Deepak िे पास थी जो वही नीचे सो रहा था। जो Mohit
ने Guard Prem िो ऊपर स आवाज लगाई जब Prem ने आवाज नहीीं सु नी
तो Prem ने थोडी और जोर से आवाज लगाई जोिी आवाज सु निर
Neeraj chaupra S/o Sh. Anil Kumar जो कि Just Terris िे नीचे ही
उसिा Floor है कनिलिर आये और उसने ते ज आवाज में Mohit से पू छा
कि क्ोीं शोर मचा रहा है तू Daily आिर परे शान िरता है व शोर मचाता है
बस इसी बात िो लेिर दोनोीं में बहस हो गई और Mohit ने िहा कि 10-
12 कदन पहले भी तू ने हवाई Fire किया था मैंने िुछ भी नहीीं किया बस इसी
बात में गुस्सा होिर Neeraj अपने Flat िे अीं दर यह िहते हुए गया कि
आज मैं इसिी िहानी िो यही ीं खत्म िर दू गाूँ । जो िुछ ही कमनटमें
Neeraj गुस्से में अपने Flat से बाहर कनिला और Mohit िो आवाज दी जो
Mohit िुछ सीक़ियाीं उतरिर नीचे गया Neeraj ने िुछ सीक़ियाीं चढिर
ऊपर आया तथा बीचमें Neeraj ने अपनी पें ट िी दाकहनी जेब से Pistol
कनिालिर Mohit िो जान से मारने िी कनयत से उसिे कसर में गोली मार
दी जो गोली लगती Mohit वही ीं कगर गया जो मैं भी तु रींत उसिे पास पहुीं चा
तो उसने मुझे भी मारना चाहा और मेरी और भी Pistol तान दी लेकिन मैंने
उसिा हाथ पिड कलया और मेरे अन्य दोस्त भी आगए हमसे हाथा पाई
होगई जोकि Neeraj हमसे छु डािर अपनी Pistol िो लेिर भाग गया जो
िी गोली िी आवाज सु निर उसिे (Mohit) िे घर वाले भी आगए और
कफर हमने घर वालो िे साथ कमलिर Injurred Mohit िो Fortis
Hospital, Vasant Kunj में Admit िरवाया जहा उसिा इलाज चल रहा
है । Neeraj Chaupra S/o Sh. Anil Kumar ने Mohit िो जान से मारने
िी कनयत से उसपर गोली चलाई उसिे खखलाफ िानू नी िायष वाही िी जाये
आपने मेरे ब्यान कलखा सु न कलया समझ कलया ठीि है । SD-English
Mayur Attested by 3/3/19 SI SP Samaria PS Vasant Kunj South,
New Dehi श्रीमान Duty Officer साहब थाना - Vasant Kunj (South)
बिार सरिार कनवे दन है कि मन SI िो DD No 4A बाबत "Shanti Kunj
H. No. A1, Krishana Green Apartment, पडौसी िे घर मे घु सिर Gun
कदखा रहा है " कमलने पर मय Ct Mohit No 2960/SW जाए मौिा A-1
Krishna, Green Apartment, Shanti Kunj, New Delhi पहुीं चे जहाूँ
दररयाप्त पर Injured िो Fortis hospital ले जाना मालूम हुआ जो इसी
दौरान SHO साहब मय Staff हाकजर आए जो मौिा पर parking िी
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
सीक़ियोीं िे पास एि चप्पल white, red, black पडी थी तथा सीक़ियोीं में
खू न कबखरा हुआ था Fourth floor िी सीक़ियोीं िे पास दु सरी चप्पल पडी
थी जोकि समान रीं ग िी थीव Fourth floor िी सीक़ियोीं पर िाफी Blood
कबखरा हुआ था Fourth floor व Terris िे बीच सीक़ियोीं में एि Invertor
व एि गमला रखा हुआ था कजसिे बीच में िाफी खू न कबखरा हुआ था
Invertor िे पास एि Speaker बारीं ग silver, Bose िा पडा हुआ था जो
Tessace कि सीकढयो िी lobby िे left side मैं एि Bullet (fired) प़िा
हुआ था तथा Right side मे एि शराब िी बोतल (Sealed) Bacardi,
Limon Deluxe, 750ml रखी हुई थी व वही ीं पास में आधी भरी हुई हुई
पानी िी बोतल Kinley रखी थी तथा शराब िी बोतल िे पास आधा ग्लास
शराब से भरा हुआ था जो प्लाखिि िा था fourth floor िी सीक़ियोीं िे
पास एि िाीं च िी बोतल टू टी पडी हुई थी। जो मन SI ने मौिे पर Crime
team िो बुलािर Inspection िरवाया था Exhibits िो बरुए फदष अलग
से िब्जा पु कलस में कलया गया जो कि मौिे पर Ct Praveen No 1514/SW
िो मौिा िी कहफाजत िे कलए छोडिर मन SI मय Ct Mohit No
2960/SW Fortis Hospital Vasant Kunj पहुीं चेजहाीं पर MLC No
6212/19 अजाने Mohit S/o Sh. Sharvan Kumar R/o Krishana
Green Apartment Shanti Kunj, A-1 Block, Vasant Kunj िो जे रे
इलाज पाया कजसिी MLC हाकसल िी गई तथा MLC पर Dr. साहब A/H/O
Gunshot Injury by neighbour over forehead in his name place @
12:00 AM, Sustem Injury over head in forehead regin 3X2cm,
Lacerated wound accuse bleedup Identification local
examination Nature of Injury Gunshot/Under Investigation
Grierous, Under Observation opinon pending तहरीर फरमाया हुआ
था जोकि वही पर चश्मदीद गवाह Mayur Digani S/o Sh. Bishan das
Digani पता उपरोक्त ने व मुलािी होिर अपना बयान पु श्त हजा तहरीर
िराया जो ब्यान बाला से , दरयास से , मौिा मुलाकहजा व मुलाकहजा MLC से
सरे दस्त सु रत जु मष U/S 307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 A. Act िा सरजद हो
ना पाया जाता है कलहाजा तहरीर हजा बगजष िायमी मुिदमा बदस्त Ct
Mohit No. 2960/SW अरसाल थाना है मुिदमा दजष रकजिर िरिे
मुिदमा न० से अवगत िराये मन SI मय गवाह रवाना तफ्तीश में जाए
मौिा िा होता हूँ । तारीख वक्त विुआ :- 02/3/19 at about 11:55 PM
जाय विुआ :- Fourth floor, A- 1, Krishana Green apartment Shanti
Kunj, New Delhi तारीख वक्त रवानगी तहरीर :- 03/3/19 at 7:30 AM
SD-English 3/3/19 Attested by SI SP Samaria PS Vasant Kunj
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
South New Delhi िायष वाही पु कलस अज थाना तहरीर िी मौसू लगी पर
मुिदमा हजा बजु मष U/S 307IPC & 25/27/54/59 A. Act दजष
Computer किया जािर FIR Computer Copy मय असल तहरीर बाहुक्म
जनाब SHO साहब वदस्त आररन्दा Ct. नज्द SI SP Samaria साहब कभजवाई
जा रही है । आईन्दा तफ्तीश अमल में लायें गे। दीगर निुलात बजररये डाि
अफसरान बाला िी खखदमत मे अरसाल होींगे। FIR DO साहब िो चै ि
िरवािर बाद तसल्ली फ्रीज िी गई"
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the
present case is one where the real victim has been made an accused by the
investigating agency and the real offenders/criminals have been shown as
victims. It is pointed out that it was applicant‟s wife who had made the first
call to PCR, wherein it was said "PADHOSHI GHAR MAI GUS KAR
JHAKRA KAR RAHA HAI OR GUN DIKHA KER GAYA HAI". It is submitted
that despite a complaint being made by the wife of the applicant, no action
was taken.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the latter and his family reside on the
4th floor of the building where the incident occurred and he also has roof
rights in his name. It is submitted that on the date of the incident, the
applicant‟s wife was preparing her daughter for her exam which was
scheduled for next day and when she came outside to put the garbage, she saw
Mohit (who resides on the 3rd Floor of the same building alongwith his
family) his friends were drunk and were hurling abuses at each other. When
the applicant‟s wife requested them to refrain themselves as her daughter was
preparing for her exams, Mohit and his friends started abusing her and
misbehaved with her, on account of which she started screaming. At this
point, it is stated that the applicant reached there and a scuffle took place
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
between the applicant and Mohit and his friends, during which the present
applicant was badly beaten. It is submitted that at that stage, one of them took
out a pistol, after which the applicant‟s wife ran inside and called the Police
Control Room („PCR‟).
5. In nutshell, the case of the applicant is that the victim Mohit was shot
accidentally by one of his friends. It is submitted that the present applicant is
a family man having no previous involvements of any kind and he could not
possibly own a weapon. It is argued that on the other hand, Mohit and his
friends, who were present at the spot, have previous involvements, which
have come on record by way of a status report filed on behalf of the
Investigating Officer.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has also placed on
record footage recorded on a mobile phone, which was played in the Court
and was stated to be of the date of incident, at about 12:39 AM. In the said
footage, it is seen that the police was present at that point of time at the house
of the applicant. Subsequently, the main Investigating Officer was called to
the Court. He identified one of the police personnel as SI Sanjani and
confirmed the fact that the said police officer was posted at the police station
at the relevant point of time. It is the case of the applicant that since the police
was already present at the applicant‟s house, the seizure memo with regard to
the alleged recovery of the pistol from the present applicant at 7:30 AM on
the said day is not possible. It was also pointed out that PW-7, in his
examination has admitted that the applicant was present at the police station,
at the time of seizure of weapon.
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has also drawn
the attention of this Court to certain portions of cross-examination of the
witnesses, including the injured witness and pointed out contradictions in
their story. It is pointed out that in the cross-examination of PW-1/Mohit, he
has stated that he did not consume alcohol in the car or at the Hookah Bar and
neither did he purchase liquor from Hauz Khas area, which was the case of
the complainant in the FIR. It is pointed out that in his testimony, PW-2/
Mayur, has stated that PW-1/Mohit had gone alongwith him to Malviya Nagar
to purchase liquor and that they had consumed liquor while sitting in the car.
It was further stated by him that they had purchased liquor and when they
reached the terrace of said building, they were carrying the same bottles
which they had purchased. However, he did not admit the fact that they were
consuming liquor at the terrace, nor that they had opened the bottle or had
made any drink in the glass. It is pointed out that Constable Mohit, in his
statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC has categorically stated
that when he reached the scene of crime, he saw "one bottle of liquor brand
Bacardi, Limon Deluxe, 750ml, sealed was kept on the stairs." It is further
stated in his statement that the glass was half filled with alcohol. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the aforesaid
contradictions, which are apparent, indicate that the victim, i.e., PW-1/Mohit
and other alleged eye-witnesses are trying to change the story to show
themselves as victims.
8. It was further pointed out that in the FIR, it was mentioned that Mohit
and his friends called one Prem (building guard) who opened the door and let
them in. However, the Investigating Officer has neither recorded his
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
statement, nor has he been cited as a witness. It is urged that the aforesaid
Prem would have been an independent witness and therefore, was deliberately
not examined by the investigating agency. Similarly, it is urged that no chance
prints were taken from the alleged weapon of offence and neither Gunshot
Residue Test („GSR‟) of the applicant has been taken.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant further submits
that all the eye-witnesses, except one have already been examined before the
learned Trial Court. It is pointed out that the present applicant was released on
interim bail as per HPC guidelines and he did not misuse the liberty. It is
further submitted that thereafter, the present applicant was again released on
interim bail and after complying with all the conditions, he duly surrendered
himself. It is submitted that the applicant satisfies the „triple test‟ of bail. The
applicant is not a flight risk. There is no possibility of the applicant tampering
with the evidence or influencing the witnesses as, in fact, the victim and the
other eye-witnesses were examined while the applicant was on interim bail. It
is further submitted that applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and has
two children while the trial is likely to take a long time and therefore, the
present application be allowed and the present applicant be granted bail.
10. Per contra, learned APP for the State, assisted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present
application of bail. It is stated that the injured victim and other eye-witnesses
have categorically corroborated the case of the prosecution in their
examination. It is stated that the present applicant had shot the victim, Mohit
at his head with the intention to kill the latter. It is pointed out that on account
of the aforesaid injury, the victim, Mohit is still not able to speak properly and
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
that the said wound has permanently damaged some of his senses. It is argued
that the weapon of offence containing one misfired round and one live
cartridge was allegedly recovered at the instance of the present applicant from
a vacant plot near his house. Even as per the FSL report, the bullet was fired
from the alleged weapon of offence. It is further pointed out that the footage
shown by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has not been
verified from any source. It is submitted that the eye-witnesses were not
confronted with the said footage and that the same is a matter of defence,
which would be required to be proved by the applicant during the course of
the trial. It is pointed out that the FIR was registered immediately on the
complaint of one eye-witness at the hospital. Attention of this Court was
drawn to the severity and gravity of the offence, as a result of which the
victim, Mohit just about managed to survive, after the applicant shot him
point blank at this head. Learned APP further submits that in the complaint
filed by the applicant‟s wife on the date of the incident, she does not say
anything about the gunshot, which is contrary to the stand taken by the
present applicant in the present application.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It is pertinent to note that the contents of the FIR, as reproduced
hereinbefore in vernacular, reflect that the complainant (Mayur Digani) and
the victim Mohit had been drinking and further decided to go to Mohit‟s
house and drink more. The victim Mohit, in his testimony, denies the
aforesaid facts. Whether the said contradiction is material or not to the case of
the prosecution would be decided by learned Trial Court at the time of final
judgment in the present case. But, the fact remains that the said witnesses do
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
contradict themselves on this issue. The footage shown by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant, although not a part of the record of the
case, prima facie, shows the presence of police personnel from the concerned
police station in the intervening night of 2/3 March, 2019 at 12:39 AM. If the
said footage is to be believed, then the case of the prosecution with respect to
the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance of the applicant in the
morning, at approximately 7:30 AM from a vacant plot near his house
becomes highly doubtful. If the applicant had owned the weapon, as is
claimed by the prosecution, then the same would have been recovered at his
instance at the time when the police was present at his house, immediately
after the incident. In this background, not taking the chance prints from the
weapon as well as the non-examination of the applicant with respect to GSR
can be considered as a defect in the investigation.
13. In the instant case the gravity and the seriousness of the offence cannot
be denied. The injured victim and the eye-witnesses have fully supported the
case of the prosecution during their examination. The defense of the applicant
as stated hereinabove is yet to be produced and proved in accordance with
law. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, held as under:
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right
to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel
to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as
long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in
Nagendra v. King-Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri
LJ 732] that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the
solution of the question whether bail should be granted or
refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly,
are the „Meerut Conspiracy cases‟ observations are to be found
regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N.
Joglekar v. Emperor [AIR 1931 All 504 : 33 Cri LJ 94] it was
observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions
Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not
handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the court
that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle
governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498
and that the only principle which was established was that the
discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v.
Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356, 358 : 32 Cri LJ 1271] it was said
that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any
particular rules which will bind the High Court, having regard to the
fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the court
unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that
may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is
dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in
particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It
was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various
sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is
the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who
enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case
and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a
presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom
and every opportunity look after his own case. A presumably
innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to
establish his innocence."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Gurcharan Singh and Others v. State
(Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, while dealing with the powers
under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. held as under:
"24. Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code, on the other hand,
confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
respect of bail. Unlike under Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed
under Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. against granting of bail by the High
Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment of life. It is, however,
legitimate to suppose that the Court or the Court of Session will be
approached by an accused only after he has failed before the
Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light
on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. Even so,
the High Court or the Court of Session will have to exercise its
judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail
under Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code. The overriding
considerations in granting of bail to which we adverted to earlier
and which are common both in the case of Section 43791) and
Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code are the nature and
gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed;
the position and the status of the accused with reference to the
victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing
from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own
life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the
case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well
as its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of
so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out."
(emphasis supplied)
15. It has been held time and again, that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception. It is also well settled that at the stage of grant of bail, the Court is
not required to dwell upon a detailed analysis of the evidence on record as
that would be a matter of trial. At the same time, gravity of the offence cannot
be the sole basis for denial of bail, as has been held in Prabhakar Tewari v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that despite alleged offence being grave and
serious and also the fact that there are criminal cases pending against the
accused, these would not by themselves be the basis for refusing bail.
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the present applicant, who
has been released on interim bail on various occasions, has not misused the
liberty granted to him and has complied with the conditions imposed on him.
As pointed out hereinbefore, the witnesses in the present case were examined
while the present applicant was on interim bail. The material witnesses in the
present case have already been examined. As per the case of the prosecution,
there is one more eye-witness, who is presently not available for his
examination. The trial is not likely to be completed in the near future. The
applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and has family to look after. The
applicant is not involved in any previous offence. As per Section 53 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in criminal proceedings, the fact that the person
accused is of good character, is relevant. As per the nominal roll dated
26.07.2023, the present applicant is in judicial custody for 01 year, 04 months
and 02 days, since 03.03.2019.
17. In totality of the facts and circumstances, the present application is
allowed. The applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the
following conditions:
i. The memo of parties shows that the applicant is residing at 32, Vasant
Enclave, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057. In case of any change of
address, the applicant is directed to inform the same to the learned Trial
Court and the Investigating Officer.
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
ii. The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the
learned Trial Court.
iii. The applicant is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the
Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.
iv. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or
try to influence the witnesses in any manner.
v. The applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the
Investigating Officer.
vi. In case it is established that the applicant tried to tamper with the
evidence, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled
forthwith.
18. The application stands disposed of along with all the pending
application(s), if any.
19. Needless to state, nothing mentioned hereinabove is an opinion on the
merits of the case pending before the learned Trial Court.
20. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
21. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
JUDGE
AUGUST 22, 2023/sn
BAIL APPLN. 1436/2023
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:22.08.2023
18:36:29
