PRADEEP KHATRI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of leading defence evidence petitioner-accused is seeking bail in FIR No. 52/2008 under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at PS Alipur, Delhi, in order to effectively defend himself in the murder trial. On 8th March, 2008 at about 11.15 pm. at Carnival Farm House, GTK Road, Delhi ring ceremony of Mr. Ajay Mann was taking place and at that time Mr. Ajay Mann aged about 25 years (since deceased) along with other persons was dancing there and as per prosecution, petitioner along with his co-accused-Ravi Tyagi came there and started arguing with Mr. Ajay Mann. Thereafter, three of them proceeded towards the parking of the farmhouse where petitioner and his co-accused had a brief conversation with each other and then petitioner purportedly took out a small double barrel gun from dickey of his car, which was taken by his co-accused, who fired from it on the chest of Mr. Ajay Mann and thereafter Mr. Ajay Mann had collapsed on the ground. It is disclosed by the respondent-State in the status report that petitioner had earlier sought bail thrice but on every occasion the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and while petitioner was on interim bail from 23rd June, 2011 to 26th June, 2011, a material witness Mr. Rajesh Maan turned hostile to the prosecution case and as per learned counsel for complainant/first informant it happened due to the threats extended by the accused party. However, now petitioner is seeking bail to enable him to effectively defend himself at the trial.

(2.) At the hearing of this application, it was put to the petitioners counsel as to how many witnesses and for what purpose petitioner intends to lead defence evidence.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that petitioner will step into the witness box himself to assert that it was a case of accidental firing and two defence witnesses i.e. Sudhir Rana and Virender Mann are the eye witnesses and common friends of the petitioner and the deceased, who will disclose the true facts. Reliance was placed by learned senior counsel for petitioner upon order dated 11th January, 2013 of my learned predecessor, who has candidly expressed in the aforesaid order that once the prosecution evidence is over there is no possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and the prima facie view expressed is that in such a case an accused deserves bail to have full opportunity to lead evidence in his defence.