SACHIN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application is filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/Sachin @ Jhony in FIR bearing no.268/2019 registered under Sec. 307/506/363/34 IPC at P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi.

(2.) The perusal of FIR bearing no.268/2019 reflects that it was got registered on the basis of complaint made by Preeti whererin it was stated that she got married in the year 2009 but due to matrimonial differences she has already filed divorce case against her husband. Preeti was residing at the house bearing no. G-3/30, Gali No.15, 4 ^ Pusta Sonia Vihar, Delhi alongwith her daughter and a boy namely, Sonu i.e. the deceased also used to live in the said colony in Gali No.18, Sonia Vihar and was running a medical store in front of Hardan Public School. The accused who are the mother, father and brother of the said Preeti used to live at Village Tatiri, Jila Bagpat, U.P. and are farmers farmers by profession. Preeti developed the intimacy with Sonu which was not liked by her family members. On 25/10/2019 at about 07:00 A.M. Bimlesh, mother of Preeti and her two brothers, Sachin and Deepak came to her house and at that time Sonu was also present in the House and they got angry after seeing Sonu in the House of the Preeti and thereafter they gave beatings to Sonu with the iron rods and the stick in their hands who received severe injuries in his hands. The Police was called and the FIR was accordingly registered. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sec. 302/506/34 and trial is stated to be pending in the Court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gautam, ACMM, District North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26/10/2019 and the bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dtd. 22/8/2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is further argued that after filing of the charge-sheet PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 was examined and who have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He further argued there is no any other incriminating evidence which can connect the petitioner/applicant with the alleged offence.