HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order two bail applications of S/Shri Harish Kumar and Nand kumar Balwa are disposed of together as these have arisen from the same F.I.R. No. 227/91 of P.S. Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi for an offence under Section 302 read the Section 120-B I.P.C. Along with the petitioners 5/Shri Davindar kumar and Aman Kumar were also involved in the incident in question. The bail of Shri Davinder Kumar came up before V.B. Bansal, J. in Cr1. M(M) 2546/91. Justice V.B. Bansal considered all the aspects of the case and after considering came to the conclusion that the case for bail has been made out. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that against Davinder kumar there was a specific charge that he fired the gun shot but in spite of that the bail had been granted, whereas against the present petitioners the allegation is that they indicted knife injuries on Ved Parkash. The testimony of Jitender Bhatia and that of Panna Lal was also discussed in the said order of V.B. Bansal, J. Therefore, relying on the order passed by V.B. Bansal, J. dt. 30th March, 1992, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that they should also be granted bail. There is in fact no eye witness to the incident. It is also contended that the petitioner Nand Kumar is not named in the F.I.R. and Ved Parkash died because of the gun shot injuries as in is apparent from the medical report of the E.S.I. Hospital. Panna Lal does not say anything about this. Jitenders statement is an after thought. Panna Lal states that Kale had fired while Harish and Baluwa indicted knife injuries to Ved Parkash and that Baluwa had also fired one shot whereas Jitender Bhatias statement in this regard is contrary. According to him the petitioner was the only person who had fired at Ved. parkash. There is a contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. According to counsel for the petitioners the injuries stated that he saw three boys who shot from behind. He fell down and became unconscious. He could not tell whether Veda died at the spot. Gurcharan Lal died on 14th June, 1.99 1. His statement was not recorded by the police nor before the S.D.M. nor any dying declaration was recorded because he never regained consciousness. Panna Lals statement is not reliable nor it can be presumed that the deceased made any dying declaration to Panna Lal. It is in this background that the bail has been sought. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as the father of the deceased Ved Parkash contended that these petitioners were responsible for the death of Ved Parkash. It is they who indicted the knife blow and even Davinder Kumar is responsible for giving gun shot. These petitioners, if granted bail would temper with the evidence. They have already tried to put fear to the father of the deceased Ved Parkash and there are chances of their interfering or tempering with the evidence.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the written submissions made by the father of the deceased and the contention raised by the counsel for the parties. In view of the observations made by V.B. Bansal, J. I see no reason why these petitioners should also not be granted bail. I accordingly admit them on bail on their furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000.00 the one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court the further direction that they will not contact the witnesses of the prosecution or temper with the evidence. Mr. Grover and Mr. Tiger Singh counsel for the petitioners stated at the bar that the petitioners will not go near the father of the deceased Ved Parkash nor will talk the any of the witnesses of the prosecution. With these observations the petition stands disposed of. Applications allowed.