Delhi District Court
State vs Chandgi Ram Etc. on 2 June, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
SC No.22/2010
FIR No.433/2009
Police Station Anand Vihar
Under Section 302/323/506/325/34 IPC and
27 of Arms Act.
State Versus Chandgi Ram etc.
O R D E R
By this order, I shall decide the application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC on behalf of the applicant/accused Mukesh Lal for the grant of interim bail for a period of 30 days from 11.05.2012 to 01.07.2012 for attending and assisting his two daughters during holidays.
2 I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Addl. PP for the State and have carefully gone through the material available on the record.
3 In the application, it is mentioned that this is the third bail application of the accused/applicant. Applicant is in JC since 09.10.2009. The applicant is a widower as his wife expired on SC No.22/2010 State Vs Chandgi Ram etc. Page 1 of 5 31.05.2012 and has two daughters aged about 13 years and 10 years who are studying in school and now are on summer vacation from 11.05.2012 to 01.07.2012. It is further mentioned that all the public witnesses have been examined and discharged and only one doctor and 5 police officials are yet to be examined. All the public witnesses are interested witnesses.
4 In support of his application, applicant has relied upon a judgment in case of Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs. Union of India 2000 (3) SCC 409 in which it was observed that parole has different connotation than bail even though the substantial legal effect of both bail and parole may be the release of a person from detention or custody. He has also relied upon judgment in case of Inder Sigh Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1978 SC 1091 in which it was observed that if the behaviour of the the prisoners shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious parole will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained. 5 The allegations levelled in the present case are that on 30.9.2009, the complainant along with Himanshu and his friends Anikesh, Rahul and Manoj had gone to take cold drink in the "In & Out" shop, situated at Masih Automobiles Petrol Pump where the SC No.22/2010 State Vs Chandgi Ram etc. Page 2 of 5 deceased Himanshu alighted from the car for taking the cold drink and started urinating by the side of wall. Accused Mukesh Lal objected to deceased Himanshu's urinating there on which some altercation ensued between them and then said Mukesh Lal abused and manhandled with the deceased. When complainant along with his three friends tried to intervene, then the applicant called his employees i.e. coaccused persons who came armed with dandas, belts and chains and they all gave beatings to the deceased. Co accused Chandgi Ram, guard of the petrol pump, was having double barrel gun and on seeing him, accused/applicant Mukesh Lal directed his coaccused Chandgi Ram to fire from his gun. On the directions of the accused Mukesh Lal, his coaccused Chandgi Ram fired 45 shots upon the deceased. After sustaining the bullet injuries, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
6 It is matter of record that accused Mukesh Lal earlier also moved similar application for the grant of interim bail before this Court. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2012. Thereafter, accused approached Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.03.2012, also dismissed SC No.22/2010 State Vs Chandgi Ram etc. Page 3 of 5 the interim bail application of accused/applicant while observing that the case was at the crucial stage of prosecution evidence. The Hon'ble High Court did not find the ground of spending time by accused with his daughters as sufficient to grant interim bail to accused/applicant.
7 It is pertinent to mention that accused/applicant Mukesh Lal filed a regular bail application before the Hon'ble High Court. The said bail application came up for hearing on 17.02.2012 on which date, his bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with the direction to this Court to conclude the trial within six months. Accused Mukesh Lal was given liberty to file application for the grant of bail after conclusion of entire prosecution evidence. 8 As per the allegations of the present case, accused/ applicant Mukesh Lal is the main accused and gun shot was fired on the deceased by his coaccused on the directions of accused Mukesh Lal. It is also matter of record that out of 51 witnesses, 49 witnesses have already been examined. The case is at the crucial stage of evidence and the evidence of prosecution is likely to conclude soon. The facts of the present case shows that the applicant was also involved in the commission of murder of the deceased as well as SC No.22/2010 State Vs Chandgi Ram etc. Page 4 of 5 causing injuries to the complainant and his friends. The applicant cannot get any help from the authorities relied upon by him as the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the facts of the said cases.
9 Considering the seriousness of offence and above mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground for the grant of interim bail to the applicant/accused. Consequently, the interim bail application of applicant/accused Mukesh Lal is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 02.06.2012 District Judge (East)
cum Addl. Sessions Judge
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.22/2010 State Vs Chandgi Ram etc. Page 5 of 5