Delhi High Court - Orders
Vishal Sharma vs State on 6 April, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 832/2021
VISHAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Aabhash Dahiya and
Mr.Mahendra, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with SI Yogendra Kumar & SI
Sohan Lal, P.S.Patel Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 06.04.2021
1. By this petition, petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.329/2020 under Sections 307/506/201/120-B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act, registered at PS Patel Nagar, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was granted interim bail which concession the petitioner did not misuse and there is no allegation that the petitioner is involved in any offence during the said period. The petitioner is not seen at the time of alleged incident nor has given any gunshot injury. There is no recovery of the arms/ammunitions from the petitioner. Though suspicion has been raised against the petitioner however, there is no material to show that the petitioner was the conspirator with the other co-accused. He further states that the trial is likely to take some time as the matter is listed for framing of charge on 20 th April, 2021.
Signature Not VerifiedBAIL APPLN. 832/2021 PageDigitally
1 of Signed
3 By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:06.04.2021
20:34:04
Since the petitioner has already shown his bona fide by not mis-utilising the interim bail, hence he be released on bail.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that the alleged offence was committed while on a motorcycle wherein the shooter Ramdev was sitting as a pillion rider and the vehicle was being driven by Akshay. Ramdev was identified by the complainant in the TIP conducted. He further states that the incident took place on 10th July, 2020 and the petitioner along with Akshay was at Shefali Guest House on 2nd July, 2020 at Paharganj where Ramdev also came to visit them and in this regard the register of the hotel has also been seized.
4. Statement of Saloni, ex-wife of the petitioner has been recorded which shows that the petitioner was harassing her due to which she had to stay in a PG accommodation away from her family members and to know the whereabouts of Saloni, the petitioner had been calling the mother and one of the relatives of Saloni from whatsapp calls including from international numbers. Mobile phone of Akshay has been seized wherein the international number used for calling the mother of Saloni and Rajesh Rana has been traced.
5. A perusal of the CCTV footages and the analysis of CDRs reveal that on 2nd July, 2020, the petitioner along with Akshay and Ramdev, the accused who had allegedly given the gun-shot injury were seen together at Shefali Guest House, Paharganj. A CCTV footage in this regard has already been seized and will be filed along with the supplementary charge sheet, which according to the learned APP for the State, will be filed within one week and which shows the presence of the petitioner along with Akshay and Ramdev, out of whom Ramdev had already been identified in the TIP by the Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 832/2021 PageDigitally 2 of Signed 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:06.04.2021 20:34:04 complainant as a person who gave gun-shot injury. Further analysis of the phone call details reveals that on 4th July, 2020, Akshay was present near the victim's house from 6 pm to 6.50 pm. On 6 th July, 2020, Akshay was present near the petitioner's house at 8.08 pm. Thereafter, on 8th July, 2020 at 19:19 hours, again, Akshay was found present near the victim's house. On 10th July, 2020, petitioner made a transaction from his debit card at Murthal and as per the CDR location of Akshay, Akshay was also present at Murthal. The last location of Ramdev was just near the place of incident, whereafter, he switched off the phone. Further, the sister of the complainant who is the ex-wife of the petitioner, had given a complaint on 3rd July, 2020 itself that she suspected the petitioner to do something wrong with her.
6. Considering the circumstantial evidence which has been placed on record by the prosecution and also likely to be placed along with the supplementary charge sheet, at this stage, this Court is satisfied that there is material to invoke Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner. Hence, this Court finds no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage when material witnesses are yet to be examined.
7. Petition is dismissed.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 06, 2021/akb Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 832/2021 PageDigitally 3 of Signed 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:06.04.2021 20:34:04