BAIL APPLN./1018/2016 of ANNU AZIZ @ MULLA Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1018/2016

ANNU AZIZ @ MULLA..... PetitionerThroughMr.Vijay Khanna, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R R%31.05.2016

Arguments heard.

The present bail application under Section 439 read withSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred bythe petitioner for grant of bail , in case arising out of FIR No.231/13registered under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code at Police StationKamla Market.

As per the status report filed by the State, the allegationslevelled are that the on 28[th]December, 2013, call was received atPolice Station Kamla Market from Lok Nayak Hospital regardingadmission of one Sallauddin Ansari due to burn injuries.On

receiving this information, SI Ramesh Chand reached the hospital andcollected MLC of the injured Sallauddin, who was under treatmentdue to burn injuries and was found fit for making the statement. Theinjured-Sallauddin in his statement stated that on 28[th]December,2013, at about 5.00-6.00 p.m., when he was standing in front of KothaNo.58, G.B. Road, Nasir Iqbal Ahmed and his brother Aziz Mulla,came and took him to his home on the pretext of having tea. Whenthey reached there, Aziz Mulla poured kerosene oil on the hands ofSallauddin while Nasir Iqbal Ahmed caught hold of his hands. At thesame time, Aziz Mulla set him on fire with lighter and after thatboth of them rushed downstairs after pushing him in room. He alsorushed downstairs in the burning condition and reached G.B. Roadwhere Nasir Iqbal was standing and he told him to go to hospital withhim so that his life could be saved. Thereafter, he along with NasirIqbal reached hospital in an auto-rickshaw.

The status report further reflects that during the course ofinvestigation, statement of witnesses was recorded and evidence wascollected. On 28[th]December, 2013, the accused Nasir Iqbal Ahmedwas arrested and at his instance, the petitioner Annu Aziz@Mulla was

also arrested. On 8[th]January, 2014, the victim Sallauddin succumbedto his injuries.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner hassubmitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the abovementioned case. It is stated that the petitioner is languishing in jailsince 29[th]December, 2013 and the investigation in respect of thepetitioner has been completed and chargesheet has also been filed andthus no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner injudicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further statedthat the learned ASJ vide order dated 28[th]November, 2015 dismissedthe bail application of the petitioner and the learned ASJ did not takeinto consideration the guiding principles while disposing of the bailapplication.In support of his contention, learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on the judgments in Siddappa DoddasadeppaGundyagol & Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2010 (1) Crime 13 (Kar.) &D.G. Thimmanna v. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.AppealNo.436/2009.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gonethrough the available records and judgments relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioner . Taking into consideration the fact that thepetitioner actively participated in the commission of the offence ofmurder by taking the victim to the place of incident, pouring keroseneoil on his person and setting him on fire with the help of co-accusedmore so when the victim clearly named the petitioner as one of theaccused, I do not find this fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the present bail application is dismissed.

Needless to say any observation made above shall not have anybearing on the merits of the case.

MAY 31, 2016/aa

P.S.TEJI, J