Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors.. on 16 October, 2012
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12
FIR no. 297/11
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.: 36/12
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors.
Date of filing the application : 29.09.2012
Date on which order reserved : 11.10.2012
Date on which order pronounced : 16.10.2012
BAIL ORDER
1.Vide this order, I shall dispose of bail application of accused Manoj Kumar Solanki U/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.)
2. Vide the present application, bail has been sought by the accused on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police official of P.S Dwarka South. Secondly, bail has been sought on the ground that material witnesses have been examined in this case and there is no reasonable ground for believing that accused has committed the alleged offence. Thirdly, bail has been sought on the ground that accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Lastly, bail has been sought on the ground that accused is having clean antecedents and he is not a previous convict. Accordingly, bail has been sought during the pendency of the present case.
3. I have heard the Ld.APP for state and Sh. Ashok Chhikara, counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Solanki. I have also carefully perused the chargesheet.
SC no. 36/12 1/8State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/114. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar Solanki contended during the course of arguments that in the present case there are no eye witness to the alleged offence of murder and the prosecution story is solely based upon alleged recovery made from the accused persons. It is further submitted by the counsel for accused that prosecution has alleged that mobile phone of deceased Sourabh Gupta was recovered from the possession of accused Manoj Kumar Solanki in the presence of PW-5 Sh Gaurav Gupta and Pw-7 Sh. Hari Krishan Gupta , who are relatives of deceased Sourabh Gupta. It is further submitted by him that both the alleged recovery witnesses have deposed contradictory with regard to the recovery of mobile phone from the possession of accused Manoj Kumar Solanki. It is submitted that witness PW-5 has deposed that mobile phone of deceased Sourabh was recovered from the accused Manoj Kumar Solanki at his instance whereas witness Pw-7 Hari Krishan Gupta has deposed that it was recovered from the possession of co-accused Yogender. It is further submitted that even Pw-7 denied that the mobile phone produced was the same, which was recovered from the possession of accused Yogender. It was further submitted by the counsel for accused Manoj Kumar solanki that there is no evidence on record to show that the recovered mobile belongs to deceased Sourabh Gupta as no evidence has been led on record by examining any mobile phone operator. It was further submitted that all the material witnesses of the prosecution have been examined in this case and they have deposed nothing incriminating against the present accused except regarding the alleged recovery of mobile of deceased, which was also doubtful in the light of contradictory deposition of recovery witnesses i.e. PW-5 and Pw-7.
SC no. 36/12 2/8State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/11Accordingly, it was prayed that accused Manoj Kumar Solanki be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this case.
5. Notice of the application was issued to the State. The Ld. APP for state has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground of gravity of offence against accused Manoj Kumar Solanki.
6. Accused Manoj Kumar Solanki has been charged on the allegations made by the prosecution that on 13.10.2011 near Dada Dev Mela Ground, accused Manoj Kumar Solanki alongwith co-accused Yogender and Ram Singh in furtherance of their common intention had committed murder of one Sourabh and at the time of committing the murder, they have also committed robbery and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302/394/34IPC. It is also alleged against present accused Manoj Kumar Solanki that he was found in possession of one mobile phone of deceased Sourabh which he had retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
7. The prosecution has examined till date all the nine material witnesses in this case. In the present case, there are no eye witness and it is based upon circumstantial evidence. The only evidence connecting the accused Manoj Kumar Solanki to the alleged murder of deceased Sourabh is the recovery of mobile phone from his possession. However, in the light of contradictory deposition of Pw-5 and Pw-7, the alleged recovery of mobile phone from the accused Manoj Kumar Solanki also become doubtful. The accused Manoj Kumar is in custody since 09.11.2011. All the material witnesses stands examined in this case. Therefore in the facts and circumstances having regard to the evidence led on record by the SC no. 36/12 3/8 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/11prosecution, in my opinion it is a fit case for admitting the accused Manoj Kumar Solanki on bail. Accordingly, the application filed by the accused Manoj Kumar Solanki is allowed. Accused Manoj Kumar Solanki is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Accordingly the bail application stands disposed of.
However, it is made clear that nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Copy of order be sent to Supdt. Tihar Jail for information.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 16.10.2012 ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
SC no. 36/12 4/8
State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12
FIR no. 297/11
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI SC No.: 36/12 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors.
Date of filing the application : 09.10.2012
Date on which order reserved : 11.10.2012
Date on which order pronounced : 16.10.2012
BAIL ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of bail application of accused Yogender @ Yogi U/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.)
2. Vide the present application, bail has been sought by the accused on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police official of P.S Dwarka South. Secondly, bail has been sought on the ground that material witnesses have been examined in this case and there is no reasonable ground for believing that accused has committed the alleged offence. Thirdly, bail has been sought on the ground that accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Lastly, bail has been sought on the ground that there are lot of contradictions in the depositions of the material witnesses. Accordingly, bail has been sought during the pendency of the present case.
3. I have heard the Ld.APP for state and counsel for accused Yogender @ Yogi. I have also carefully perused the chargesheet.
4. Counsel for accused Yogender @ Yogi contended during the course of SC no. 36/12 5/8 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/11arguments that only evidence against the present accused is recovery of wooden phatta used in commission of alleged murder at the instance of accused. However, the alleged recovery is doubtful as the same has been shown to have been made about one month after the date of alleged murder and that too from open public place. Further in the cross- examination of Pw-5, Sh Gaurav Gupta, who was alleged recovery witness of phatta he has deposed that he remained outside when the recovery was effected and he can not identify as to accused got recovered the phatta. It is further submitted by him that Pw-7 Hari Krishan has deposed that his brother PW-2 Sh Ved Prakash had accompanied him at the time of recovery of wooden phatta and Pw-7 Hari Krishan had also signed the recovery memos. However the evidence of Pw-2 Ved Prakash is silent on the point of recovery of wooden phatta at the instance of accused Yogender @ Yogi or Pw-2 Ved Pakash accompanying PW-7 on the date of alleged recovery of wooden phatta at the instance of accused Yogender @ Yogi. It was further submitted that all the material witnesses of the prosecution have been examined in this case and they have deposed nothing incriminating against the present accused except regarding the alleged recovery of wooden Phatta, which was also doubtful in the light of contradictory deposition of recovery witnesses i.e. PW-2,PW-5 and Pw-7. Accordingly, it was prayed that accused Yogender @ Yogi be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this case.
5. Notice of the application was issued to the State. The Ld. APP for state has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground of gravity of SC no. 36/12 6/8 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/11offence against accused Yogender @ Yogi.
6. Accused Yogender @ Yogi has been charged on the allegations made by the prosecution that on 13.10.2011 near Dada Dev Mela Ground, Yogender alongwith co-acused Manoj Kumar Solanki and Ram Singh in furtherance of their common intention had committed murder of one Sourabh and at the time of committing the murder, they have also committed robbery and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302/394/34IPC.
7. The prosecution has examined till date all the nine material witnesses in this case. In the present case, there are no eye witness and it is based upon circumstantial evidence. The only evidence connecting the accused Yogender @ Yogi to the alleged murder of deceased Sourabh is the recovery of wooden phatta from his possession. However, in the light of contradictory deposition of Pw-2, Pw-5 and Pw-7, the alleged recovery of wooden phatta from the accused Yogender @ Yogi also become doubtful. The accused Yogender @ Yogi is in custody since 09.11.2011. All the material witnesses stands examined in this case. Therefore in the facts and circumstances having regard to the evidence led on record by the prosecution, in my opinion it is a fit case for admitting the accused Yogender @ Yogi on bail. Accordingly, the application filed by the accused Yogender @ Yogi is allowed. Accused Yogender @ Yogi is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Accordingly the bail application stands disposed of.
However, it is made clear that nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
SC no. 36/12 7/8State Vs. Manoj Kumar Solanki & Ors..
SC No.36/12 FIR no. 297/11Copy of order be sent to Supdt. Tihar Jail for information.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 16.10.2012 ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
SC no. 36/12 8/8