Delhi High Court
Pardeep @ Tinkle vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 March, 2024
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 05.03.2024
Pronounced on: 12.03.2024
+ BAIL APPN.2883/2023
PRADEEP @ TINKLE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravindra Narayan,
Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State with Inspector Muneesh
Kumar, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C'), has been filed on behalf of the
applicant/accused seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of
FIR bearing No. 609/2016 registered at Police Station Ambedkar
Nagar, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on
19.10.2016, a complaint was filed by the complainant wherein it was
alleged that at about 4:15 PM, the complainant had heard some
disturbing noise from the vicinity and upon seeing, he had discovered
that his younger brother/victim/deceased, aged about 24 years at the
time of incident, had been caught hold by two of the accused persons
and other two accused persons carrying knives had stabbed his
younger brother. It is further alleged that upon seeing the same, the
complainant had rushed to help his younger brother and upon seeing
the complainant, four of the accused persons had absconded leaving a
knife in his younger brother's stomach. Thereafter, the complainant
had taken his younger brother to the hospital where his medical
examination had been conducted wherein it had been observed by the
doctor that the victim had been brought to the hospital unconscious,
unresponsive with multiple stab wounds and a knife stabbed in the
abdomen. The nature of injury was opined to be dangerous, and later,
the victim was declared dead. On these allegations, the present FIR
had been registered.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused
argues that the investigation in the present case has already been
completed and the chargesheet stands filed. It is argued that the
present applicant/accused was granted interim bail on 08.05.2018 for
a period of five days to participate in the wedding of his brother and
the applicant had surrendered on time, and thereafter, the applicant
was again released on bail as per the HPC guidelines and he had then
surrendered on 07.04.2023 and since then, the applicant/accused is in
judicial custody. It is further stated that the applicant belongs to a
poor strata of society and has to take care of his wife and family, and
he is ready to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court.
Therefore, it is prayed that the present applicant/accused be enlarged
on regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP for State opposes the present bail
application and argues that the allegations in the present case are
serious in nature. It is argued that the eyewitness has identified the
applicant before the learned Trial Court and the case is at the stage of
prosecution evidence. It is prayed that since there is a likelihood that
the present applicant can influence the remaining witnesses, the
present bail application be rejected.
5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties and has perused the material placed on record.
6. The case of prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 19.10.2016,
two of the accused persons namely Subhash and Sunny had caught
hold of the victim i.e. younger brother of the complainant, and the
present applicant Pradeep and co-accused Ashish had stabbed him in
his abdomen with knives, in broad daylight. Thereafter, they had fled
the spot, leaving a knife behind in the stomach of the victim.
7. This Court notes that the role of the present applicant is serious
in nature, as he had stabbed the victim multiple times on his abdomen
and had left the knife in his stomach. Thereafter, all the accused had
run away from the spot. Furthermore, it was the present applicant
who had disclosed the identity of other two accused persons, who had
thereafter been apprehended by the police officials. As per post-
mortem report, the cause of death of the victim/deceasedwas opined
as 'shock due to hemorrhage consequent to stab injury to thorax and
abdomen caused by sharp edged pointed weapon', and that the
injuries caused to him, both individually and collectively, were
sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. The eye
witness in the present case and other material witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court.
8. Further, as per the status report filed by the State, the applicant
has four brothers and that his wife is also residing in the same house.
Therefore, the argument that the applicant has to take care of his
family is without merit as there are other family members in his
family who can look after his wife and other family members. The
trial of the case is at crucial stage and prosecution witnesses are being
examined.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
gravity of the offence and the material against the applicant, no
ground for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage.
10. Accordingly, the present bail application for grant of regular
bail stands dismissed.
11. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
12. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MARCH 12, 2024/zp
