Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Imran Ali vs State Of Delhi on 25 November, 2021

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

$~8
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        BAIL APPLN. 217/2020
         IMRAN ALI                                          ..... Petitioner
                      Represented by:    Mr Manohar Singh Bakshi, Mr A. K.
                                         Singh, Mr Mohd. Kamran Khan and
                                         Ms Reeta, Advocates.

                            versus

         STATE OF DELHI                                 ..... Respondent
                  Represented by:        Mr Amit Gupta, APP for the State
                                         with SI Talib Khan, PS Sangam
                                         Vihar.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                 ORDER

% 25.11.2021

1. By this petitioner, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.0507/2015 under Sections 364/302/34 IPC registered at PS Sangam Vihar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 11th August, 2015 and till date the prosecution evidence is not complete. The complainant has already turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution witness. There is no evidence against the petitioner and is languishing in jail.

3. Learned APP for the State at the outset submits that the petitioner was granted interim bail on 12th June, 2020 and in terms of the HPC Guidelines he continued to be on interim bail till April, 2021 when he surrendered and Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN.217/2020 Page MUKTA 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE GUPTA Signing Date:25.11.2021 20:48:28 thereafter, from May, 2021 again he is on bail and has not surrendered as yet. He further states that even though the complainant has turned, the two very important evidences against the petitioner are that the DNA analysis of the blood found on the clothes of the petitioner matched with the DNA of the deceased thereby indicating the time when the offence was committed the petitioner was around him and secondly the dead body was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

4. The above noted FIR was registered pursuant to a PCR call received on 10th August, 2015, which was recorded vide DD No.22A informing about the kidnapping of person Shivam. Statement of Amit Sharma was recorded who stated that at about 1:00 PM he along with his friend Shivam were going to repair the motorcycle at Ratia Marg near KSK School, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. In the meantime, four boys on two motorcycles came there and forcefully made Shivam to sit on one of the motorcycle and ran away with their motorcycles from the spot. Out of the four boys, he knew two boys whose names were Rahul and Lucky. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on an information from the Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar and pursuant to his disclosure statement it was informed that along with three other accused Shivam was kidnapped and murdered and the dead body of Shivam was recovered from the jungle of Sangam Vihar at the instance of the petitioner. Further Election ID Card of the petitioner was also found at the place where the alleged offence of murder took place in the jungle along with shirt of Imran. When the clothes were sent for DNA analysis, the blood on the clothes of the petitioner were found to tally with the DNA from the blood samples of the deceased. Merely because Amit Sharma, the complainant, who was an eye-witness to the kidnapping has turned hostile Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN.217/2020 Page MUKTA 2 of 3 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE GUPTA Signing Date:25.11.2021 20:48:28 cannot be sufficient to reach to the conclusion that there is no evidence against the petitioner of his complicity in the offences charged with as vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses have since been examined and the Investigating Officer is under examination besides one or two formal witnesses, if any remain. Considering the evidence already on record and that the petitioner has been in custody from 11th August, 2015 to June, 2020 whereafter he was granted interim bail from which he has not surrendered, this Court finds no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5. Petition is dismissed.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.





                                                   MUKTA GUPTA, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
MK




                                                                  Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.217/2020                                             Page
                                                                 MUKTA 3 of   3
                                                                 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
                                                                           GUPTA
                                                                  Signing Date:25.11.2021
                                                                  20:48:28