BAIL APPLN./67/2023 of SH. SATYAVEER @ NONA Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 67/2023

SH. SATYAVEER @ NONA.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.versusversus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the Statewith Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, PSAdarsh Nagar.

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNAO R R%06.08.2024

1.The Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, for grant of Regular Bail inthe Case FIR No.320/2021, for the offence under Section 302/34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860, has been registered at Police Station AdarshNagar, Delhi.

2.It is submitted in the application that the FIR had been recorded onaccount of murder of deceased, Dev Priya Sagar, who was allegedly stabbedby the two co-accused along with the petitioner, in furtherance of commonintention. FIR under Section 302/34 of IPC was registered. After theinvestigation, the Charge-Sheet has been filed and the prosecution witness isbeing recorded.

3.It is submitted that the bail is sought on the ground that from the postmortem Report, it is evident that the FIR is ante timed. The Supplementary

Charge Sheet filed in respect of the eye-witnesses, is not in continuity but inimprovement of the earlier statements and also they are contradictory to theprevious statement as there is no common intention on the part of the presentpetitioner, to commit the murder. The CCTV footages relied upon by theprosecution, clearly reflect that upto 20 persons were present in the quarreland none can be identified except those who are visible in the CCTVfootages. It also clearly shows that the complainant party had gathered inhuge number and there was mutual fight.

4.It is submitted that accused is young boy of 18 years and threemonths, on the date of alleged incident as no criminal antecedents andbelongs to respective family. No purpose would be served in keeping himcustody. Hence, the bail is sought.

5.Reliance has been placed on the case ofSuresh and Another vs. Stateof Uttar Pradesh;Afrahim Dheikh and Others vs. State of West Bengal;Krishnan and Another vs. State of Kerala;King Emperor vs. BarendraKumar Ghose;Bashir vs. State;Surendra Chauhan vs. State of MadhyaPradesh;Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab;Rajesh Kumar vs. State ofHimachal Pradesh;Arun vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu;Haredev Singh and Another vs. State of Punjaband Dharam Pal and Othersvs. State of Haryana.

6.Learned APP for the State, has contested the Application and hassubmitted that from the CCTV footage and otherwise from the statements ofthe witnesses, it is evident that the role of the petitioner has been defined asholding the deceased while he was stabbed by the other co-accused. Thecase is based on the statements of two eye witnesses, who have been partlyrecorded but has been deferred for want of FSL Report. There is also

recovery of two knives from the two co-accused. The trial is claimed to beproceeding at regular pace as eight witnesses have already been recorded.Bail is, therefore, opposed.

7.Submissions heard.

8.It is case of murder based on the testimony of the eye witnesses. TheCharges have been framed on 10.10.2022 and eight witnesses since then,have been examined.

9.Considering the gravity and the surrounding circumstances, it is not afit case for grant of bail and same is denied. However, the learned trial courtshall try to expeditiously decide the matter. The Investigating Officer shallalso on priority try to obtain the FSL Report, so that there is no delay in thetrial.

10.The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

AUGUST 6, 2024/RS

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J