BAIL APPLN./1154/2024 of BHUPENDER @ KALU Vs THE STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1154/2024

BHUPENDER @ KALU.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Jaineer, Mr. Irshad and Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, Advs.Abhishek Malhotra, Advs.

versus

THE STATE.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for StateSI Manish Tyagi, PS Govind PuriThrough:Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for StateSI Manish Tyagi, PS Govind Puri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNAO R R%10.07.2024

1.Petition under Section 439 CrPC has been filed for regular bail in FIRNo.1475/2015 under Section 302/34 of the IPC registered at PS GovindPuri.

2.It is submitted in the application that the petitioner has cleanantecedents as there is no other previous history.He has not committedmajor offence and the case of the prosecution is absolutely false. He hasbeen implicated falsely in this criminal case as there is nothing to connecthim with the alleged offence. All the public witnesses have already beenexamined and only the official witnesses remain.Only 7 witnesses havebeen examined out of 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution.There areinherent contradictions in the statement of the complainant.

3.It is submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated

07.10.2021 under the HPC guidelines for almost two years and hassurrendered on time. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and is aman of repute.He would be ruined if he is kept behind the bars forunlimited period amongst the hard core criminals. He is in judicial custodysince 17.11.2015 in fabricated case hence prayer is made for regular bail.

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that11 material witnesses have already been recorded and only 15 witnessesremain to be examined who are doctors and IO. The trial is being conductedexpeditiously and is likely to be concluded in the near future. Consideringthe gravity of the allegations which are based on the testimony of an eye-witness who has fully supported the case of the prosecution in his testimony,the bail should be rejected.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he isin judicial custody for 9 years and some more time would be required toconclude the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied uponPraveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan SLP 6505/2023 decided on06.10.2023 wherein the Apex Court had taken into consideration that theaccused has been in judicial custody for 4 ½ years, to grant him bail with thedirections to the Trial Court to make an endeavour to conclude the trial atthe earliest. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner be granted bail.6.Submissions heard.

7.There are serious allegations of murder against the petitioner. Elevenwitnesses have already been examined and learned APP for the Statesubmitted that the trial is likely to be concluded.Considering thesubmissions, the bail is denied but the Trial Court is directed to make anendeavour to complete the trial expeditiously preferably within six months.

8.In view of the above, the bail application is disposed of.

JULY 10, 2024ns

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J