BAIL APPLN./488/2017 of KARAN VERMA Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 488/2017KARAN VERMA..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMs.Rakhi Dubey, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThroughMr.Akshai Malik, APP with Insp.Jagdish Yadav, PS Mandawali.Mr.Ritesh Bahri & Mr.Vipin Bansal,Advs. for the complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJIO R R%22.03.2017

Arguments heard.

The present application has been filed under Section 439Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.486/2013, underSection 302/34 IPC, Police Station Mandawali.

The allegations levelled in the present case are that on16.09.2013, PCR Call was received to the effect that one person waslying unconscious near Pappu Halwai, A-Block, South Ganesh Nagar,Delhi. The police reached the spot and injured was shifted to LBSHospital. The injured was not found fit for statement. Blood stainswere found in the room, corridor and at the staircase of H.No.A-456,

Third Floor, South Ganesh Nagar. As per the MLC of the injured,FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered. The deceased succumbedto his injuries in the hospital and the case was converted into Section302/34 IPC. Statement of eye witness Prashant Kumar was recordedwho stated that accused Karan Verma was regular visitor with co-accused Parvinder Singh Yadav and Kamal at A-456, Third Floor,South Ganesh Nagar. He further stated that in the night of 16.09.2013when he reached his house on the same floor, he heard noise ofquarrel. From his balcony he saw four persons giving beatings withbricks to deceased and then he made PCR call.

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner isthat incident is dated 16.09.2013 and FIR was registered on17.09.2013.The accused was arrested on 18.09.2013 and he is injudicial custody for the last about 3½ years. It is further argued thatthe wife of the deceased had levelled specific allegations against someother persons but the same were let off by the police and the presentpetitioner has been booked falsely in the present case. It is submittedthat the wife of the deceased had made several complaints toauthorities regarding letting off of the real murderers but the policedid not take any action against them. It is further submitted that thetestimony of eye witness (PW4) cannot be relied upon as he had notdisclosed the name of the accused to the police at the first instance. Itis further submitted that the testimony of PCR official (PW16) whotook the deceased to the hospital to the effect that the deceaseddisclosed the name of accused persons is also of no consequence.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the

bail application on the ground that the eye witness had duly namedthe accused in his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to thepolice. Even in his deposition in the Court as PW4, he had identifiedthe accused/petitioner as one of the assailants who gave beatings tothe deceased on the day of incident. He has further submitted thatPW16 ASI Dharamvir, Incharge of the PCR Van who took injured tothe hospital has also made statement that on the way to hospital,injured disclosed to him that accused Karan Verma and his co-accused persons assaulted him. It is further submitted that the trouserof the accused was found to have blood stains of the deceased and thesaid fact has duly been established from FSL report. Further, the carof the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the accused fromwhich bag belonging to the deceased containing his valuable paperswas recovered.

Argument advanced by the counsel for the complainant is thatthe eye witness and the PCR official have duly supported the case ofprosecution. There is sufficient material on record which proves theguilt of the accused that he along with his co-accused persons hascommitted the murder of the deceased. The gravity of the offencedoes not call for any concession of bail to the accused.

There are specific allegations against the accused regarding hisinvolvement with other co-accused persons of giving severe beatingsto the deceased which resulted into his death.Eye witness of theincident has duly supported the case of the prosecution that he hadseen accused Karan Verma and his co-accused giving beatings to thedeceased on the day of incident. Police official of the PCR Van who

took the injured to the hospital has also stated that on the way to thehospital the injured informed him that he was given beatings by theaccused persons including the present petitioner/accused.There isscientific evidence also on record which shows that the trouser of theaccused was found with blood stains of the deceased on it.It is amatter of record that out of total 33 prosecution witnesses, 22witnesses have already been examined and substantial witnesses havealready been recorded.

Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused to the effect that the allegations levelled are false or that theaccused has been falsely implicated or that testimony of eye witnessand PCR official cannot be relied upon, are matter of defence andno comment on the same can be made at this stage. No comment onthe same can be made at this stage as the same is matter of trial and itcan be ascertained only by the trial court at the time of passing offinal judgment. It is also matter of record that the bail application ofco-accused Parvinder Singh Yadav and Kamal have already beendismissed.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, thegravity of the offence involved and the role attributed to the accused,this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place iton record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been statedhereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose ofdisposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing

contained in this order shall be construed as expression of finalopinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in thecase which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seizedof the trial.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

MARCH 22, 2017

P.S.TEJI, J