Delhi High Court
Darshan Dabas vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 March, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 20.03.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ BAIL APPLN. 4820/2024
DARSHAN DABAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Dabas, Adv.
(through VC)
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the
State with Insp. Pardeep Rawat,
Vigilance and Insp. Rajeev
Kumar, P.S. Nazafgarh.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. Petitioner Darshan Dabas has filed bail application under
Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with
Section 439 Cr. PC for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 405/2018,
under Section 302/365/120-B/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, PS
Najafgarh, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that applicant/accused
has no role to play. It is submitted that the case against the accused is
based on circumstantial evidence. PW-8, Vijay Pal, who testified
before the court that his deceased brother (Praveen Rathore) informed
him that he was going to meet applicant/accused, Darshan Dabas for
settling some property dispute, is partly hostile. PW Sombir is also
hostile, inasmuch as, he has testified that applicant/accused has no
dispute qua the property in dispute and he was totally unknown to the
deceased Praveen Rathore.
3. It is also argued that all the material witnesses have already
been examined but no evidence has come on record against the present
applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant/accused. There are no chances of
tampering with the witnesses, as only police officials remain to be
examined. It is also submitted that the case is not likely to be decided
in near future as the case property has been sent to FSL after a lapse of
seven years and FSL report is still awaited.
4. Bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional PP,
arguing that despite being in custody, the petitioner managed to win
over the public witnesses. As per nominal role, applicant/accused is
involved in six more cases and is already a convict in case FIR No.
638/2008, under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act, PS
Najafgarh. It is submitted that applicant has committed the murder
pursuant to conspiracy hatched with the co-accused persons. It is
submitted that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the
possession of the accused and his location at the scene of crime stands
established through the CDR records.
5. As per prosecution version, complainant Vijay Pal, brother of
deceased Praveen Rathore, made a complaint at PS Najafgarh about
the missing of his brother on 12.12.2018. As per the said complaint, at
about 1.00 pm, Praveen told him that he was going to Ghevra to meet
Darshan and left the house. Since Praveen was not attending his phone
call, he reported the matter to the police at 100 number. At about
12.00 am, complainant spotted his brother lying dead with gunshot
injury at Nangli Industrial Area, behind Coca Cola Factory. FIR was
registered under Section 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
6. During investigation, co-accused Satish Kumar @ Shakti Dada
was arrested on 27.12.2018, and on his disclosure, petitioner has been
arrested. The first bail application filed by the applicant/accused has
been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024. There has
been no substantial change of circumstance since the dismissal of the
last bail application, except the passage of some time. The claim of the
petitioner that public witnesses have not supported the prosecution
version, cannot be considered at this stage. It is not a stage to dissect
the material on record and to examine it microscopically. The
infirmities in the testimonies of the witnesses, if any, are to be decided
at an appropriate stage. Admittedly, co-accused Pramod Kumar has
been granted bail by this Court and the other co-accused Satish Kumar
has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court, but applicant/accused
cannot claim parity, inasmuch as, prosecution is strongly relying upon
the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. pistol from the possession of
the present applicant. Another piece of evidence, upon which the
prosecution is relying against the accused to prove his guilt, is the call
detail records, which show the presence of the accused near the spot of
occurrence.
7. The nominal roll received from jail shows that accused has
criminal antecedents. He is involved in case FIR No. 638/2008, under
Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh.
8. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances and the
nature and gravity of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a
fit case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused at this stage.
9. The application is accordingly dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
MARCH 20, 2025
RM
