FARMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 465/2017 dated 21.04.2017, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201, 120B, 34 and 506 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this bail application are as follows:

(3.) Mr. Akshay Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2018. He would contend that the eye- witnesses have turned hostile. He contends that the eye-witnesses during the investigation had stated that the petitioner had shot the deceased and since the eye-witnesses have given the statement in Court that the petitioner had shot the deceased the case becomes one of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the two eye-witnesses namely Monty (PW-2) and Vakil (PW-3) have turned hostile, the petitioner's case is identical to that of Gopal who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2021, in BAIL APPLN.189/2021 and the petitioner is entitled to bail on parity. Mr. Akshay Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that as per the eye-witnesses the deceased was shot by the petitioner herein but the MLC of the dead body, which has been recovered and which has been identified by the family members of the deceased as that of Firoz, does not have any bullet wounds which raises doubts as to whether the dead body which was recovered was that of the deceased or was it of someone else. He would therefore state that in the absence of the dead body there is nothing to state that it was the petitioner who shot the deceased. He further contends that the petitioner is in incarceration for the last two years and ten months, 26 witnesses have been examined, the two eye-witnesses and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the petitioner is entitled to bail.