The High Court of Delhi, considering that the deceased's identity is unknown and the weapon is alleged to be planted, granted bail to the petitioner despite lower court proceedings, subject to a personal bond of 10,000/- and one surety.
Petitioner admitted to bail subject to furnish a personal bond of `10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~29
| * **IN THE HIGH COURT ** |
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Manoj Kumar, P.S. Special Cell, Lodhi Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 03.01.2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. No dead body was recovered. Even the identity of the person, who was allegedly killed by the petitioner and coaccused, could not be ascertained. Except the alleged telephonic conversations, there is no other material to show the culpability of petitioner. He further submits that weapon, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, has been planted by the police. There is nothing on record to show that this weapon was used to kill anyone. Petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years.
Learned APP has opposed the grant of bail to petitioner. She contends that petitioner was present in the house of co-accused Karamvir @
Kala when the raid was conducted and a desi katta along with two live cartridges was recovered from him. She further contends that co-accused Karamvir @ Kala, who was lodged in jail, was in constant touch with coaccused, namely, Vinod @ Sillu, Harvinder @ Monu and Amarjeet @ Kunal on mobile phone no. 9729683891, which was put on surveillance. The said conversation indicated accused were planning to kill one Sanjit @ Bunty and Mintu @ Kaka or someone from their family who were living in Ranikheda Village, Delhi. On the basis of this intercepted mobile phone conversation on 15th May, 2015, a raid was conducted at the house of Karamvir where petitioner was found present and arrested.
Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 03, 2018 ga
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a murder charge where the identity of the deceased is unknown and the weapon is alleged to be planted.
Whether the alleged telephonic conversations and presence at the scene during a raid justify the petitioner's continued custody after two and a half years.
Lokesh @ Kartik
State (NCT of Delhi)
A.K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
