Delhi High Court: In a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) filed by the petitioner, alleged member of the Manjit Mahal Gang, seeking regular bail for offences under sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’), Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., granted the petitioner bail, noting that he had been in custody for 8 years and that interim bail had also been granted to him by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka District Court, New Delhi (‘The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’) conditions whereof had not been violated by him.
Background
The petitioner has filed the instant application in a matter concerning the death of a doctor on 20-01-2015, by shooting. It has been contended by the petitioner that neither has he been named in the FIR, nor was any role ascribed to him in the statement of the complainant under Section 161 of the CrPC. The complainant had only mentioned that the petitioner was present at the time of the offence. It was submitted by the petitioner that even in the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the CrPC, no reference was made to the petitioner.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the complainant was murdered on 31-01-2024, in an unrelated incident, to which the petitioner had no connection. It was further contended by the petitioner that he was arrested on 01-01-2016 in a different matter pertaining to a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and he had already been acquitted vide judgment dated 06-01-2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by giving him benefit of doubt. His acquittal was also not challenged by the State.
The petitioner submitted that the firearm that was recovered from him in the other case was alleged to have been the firearm used in the present case, however the Forensic Science Lab Report dated 08-12-2017 proved otherwise.
The State submitted that as a result of the complainant’s death, none of his statements could be used in evidence anymore. It was also submitted by the State that 3 witnesses had also turned hostile in the present case.
Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for 8 years 2 months and 17 days as of 22-03-2024. The Court said that even though the petitioner’s conduct in jail was stated to have been ‘unsatisfactory’, he had already been punished for the offences committed in the prison and had already atoned for them.
The Court observed that as per the nominal rolls the petitioner had been granted interim bail from 16-12-2020 to 01-01-2021. The Court further noted that there were no allegations that the petitioner had not surrendered on time or that he had violated the conditions of interim bail. The Court also noted that petitioner also did not have any other criminal involvements.
The Court, therefore, granted the petitioner regular bail, subject to certain conditions.
[Dharmender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4618, decided on 05-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for Petitioner: Sakshi Kaul, Chirag Kaushik, Jatin Sapra
Advocates for State: Manoj Pant, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
