MOHD. IMAM @ IMAMUDDIN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for regular bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.81/2009 under sections 186/ 353/ 394/ 397/ 307/ 411/ 34 of the IPC registered at P.S. Nand Nagri.

(2.) ACCORDING to the FIR, on the intervening night of 12.03.2009 and 13.03.2009, Head Constable Onkar Singh of police station Nand Nagri was stated to have been patrolling the area on night duty. While passing through the DDA Market, four or five persons are said to have assaulted him on his face and head with a baseball bat and brick, robbed his service revolver and 5 live cartridges and his other belongings and left him at the spot in a serious condition. On receipt of PCR call, ASI Rambir reached the spot and found a pool of blood and some of the belongings of the injured Head Constable Onkar strewn at the spot. The injured was removed to the hospital where he was treated vide MLC No.1100/2009. He was referred to AIIMS where he remained admitted for about a month and half.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against Sonu Gupta and Santosh and proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. (proclamation) were initiated against the present applicant. On 10.08.2009, the applicant surrendered before the Court in case FIR No.84/2009 and was remanded to one day police custody by the IO. He was interrogated in the police station and was formally arrested in the present case (FIR No.81/2009) on 11.08.2009. The baseball bat alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime was recovered from behind the T.V. from house of the applicant. This is stated to be after four months of the incident. The Sessions Court dismissed the bail application of the accused by order dated 20.04.2013. It was observed that the associates of the accused had given beating to Onkar, Head Constable with dandas, baseball bat and bricks, thus they committed an offence against a public servant on duty and also took away his service revolver and five live cartridges. Moreover, the investigating officer was yet to be examined. Therefore, the Sessions Court was not inclined to grant bail to the accused. The bail application was dismissed.