Delhi High Court
Vikas vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 26 July, 2023
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 815/2022
VIKAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Adv.
versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State
with Inspector Pawan Kumar, PS
Narela
% Date of Decision: 26th July, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 10610/2023 in BAIL APPLN. 815/2022
1. The present application has been moved seeking an early
hearing.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
BAIL APPLN. 815/2022
3. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant
seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 228/2020 registered at
Police Station Narela for an offence punishable under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only
evidence which is available against the applicant is the
disclosure statement made by the applicant/accused and his
refusal to take part in TIP proceedings. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant is in custody since
09.07.2021. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has
already been filed, however, the charges have yet not been
framed and the trial may take a long time.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail
application and submits that the present FIR was lodged on the
statement of Durga Singh wherein he has alleged that on the
intervening night of 12/15.06.2020, two guards namely Amit
Kumar and Sunil were beaten up mercilessly with wooden
sticks and iron bars by some unknown persons. The
complainant Durga Singh alleged that when he tried to
intervene and save the guards, the alleged accused persons
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
attacked him also, therefore to save his life, he ran away from
there. The complainant further stated that he can identify the
assailants. Initially, the case was registered under Section
307/34 of IPC. However, later on, both persons succumbed to
injuries, and Section 307 was converted into Section 302 of
IPC.
6. Learned APP submits that it was a blind murder. However, on
07.07.2021, information was received at PS Narela from
Haryana Police, CIA-2/Panipat regarding two accused persons
namely Vikas (i.e. the present applicant) and Ankit got arrested
in case FIR No. 276/21, under Section 398/401 IPC & 25(1)(b)
of Arms Act, PS Sector 29, Panipat Haryana. During the
interrogation, the accused persons made a disclosure statement
that they also carried out another incident in Narela about 1
year ago along with their other accomplices namely Rahul,
Monu, and others.
7. Learned APP for the State submits that during the course of the
investigation, the present applicant and Ankit were formally
arrested in the Panipat Jail on 09.07.2021. Learned APP for the
State submits that the applicant refused to take part in the TIP
proceedings. However, the applicant was identified by the
eyewitness through the dossier photographs.
8. Learned APP has also submitted that the plea taken by the
applicant that his photo had already been published in Dainik
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
Jagran was also found to be false and in this regard, an updated
status report was filed on 11.09.2022 wherein it was found that
no such photographs was published. Learned APP also submits
that the petitioner is also involved in another FIR No. 276/2021
under Sections 398/401 IPC and Section 25(1)(b) Arms Act.
9. The jurisprudence regarding the grant of bail is very well
settled. The principles regarding the grant of bail in serious
offence cases have been dealt with in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004 (7) SCC
528) in para 11 wherein it was inter-alia held as under:
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting
bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge.
10. In the present case, as per the defence, there are two evidence
against the petitioner i.e. disclosure statement made by the
accused in FIR 276/2021 and his refusal to take part in the TIP
proceedings.
11. It is a settled proposition that the TIP is not a substantive piece
of evidence. This contention of the learned Defence Counsel
that mere refusal to take part in TIP proceedings cannot be a
ground to refuse the bail is to be considered. Taking into
account the totality of facts and circumstances and without
making any observations on the merits of the case, as it may
prejudice the parties, the petitioner is admitted to bail on
furnishing a personal bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
Subject to the following conditions:
(a) the Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer of the case and trial court, as and when required;
(b) the petitioner shall under no circumstances leave India
without prior permission of the Court concerned;
(c) the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate the
witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence in any
manner;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
(d) the petitioner shall also surrender his passport, if any, to
the investigation officer.
(e) the Petitioner shall provide his mobile number(s) to the
Investigating Officer/court concerned and keep it operational
at all times;
(f) In case of change of residential address and/or mobile
number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the
Investigating Officer/ Court concerned by way of an
affidavit.
12. The learned Session Court is at liberty to impose other bail
conditions in order to ensure the presence of the accused in the
trial court proceedings and to prevent the tampering of evidence
and to not to threaten the prosecution witnesses.
13. It is made clear that no expression made herein shall be
tantamount to an expression in the merits of the case.
14. In view of the above, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 26, 2023/Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:28.07.2023
11:56:54
