RAHUL @ MONU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.S.SANGAM VIHAR THESE three bail applications are taken up together as they arise out of the same FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are 9 accused in this FIR. They submit that there are allegedly two eye-witnesses namely, Kuldeep and Abid. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Kuldeep's statement as indicated in the FIR reveals that he was allegedly an eyewitness to the incidents which took place inside the tent where his sister's marriage ceremony was going on. The incident was sparked off by the co-accused Ranjit, Javed @ Mamu and Mohd. Arif @ Kale entering the tent uninvited and insisting upon dancing on the DJ floor. Initially, three co-accused were repelled and were asked to leave. Thereafter, they returned with six others which allegedly deluded the present three petitioners and again created a commotion by throwing chairs and beating up one Ravinder and one Guddu C) Zahir. All the 9 persons were once again made to leave the tent. Thereafter, a third incident is alleged to have occurred and that is when the said Guddu @ Zahir is said to have gone outside the tent to collect some goods and he was assaulted by these 9 persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Kuldeep was inside the tent and, therefore, was not an eye-witness to the last of the incidents. The other person who is cited as an eye-witness is one Abid who is the brother of the deceased Guddu @ Zahir. According to his statement, he has been able to identify the co-accused Ranjit, Mamu and Kale on the basis of the names they were calling each other. According to his statement, the co-accused Ranjit and Mamu caught hold of Guddu @ Zahir and it is co-accused Kale who inflicted the fatal injury, i.e. stab wound on the right thigh which ultimately led to the death of Guddu @ Zahir. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the present petitioners were not actively involved in the incident of stabbing. They have not been named or identified by the alleged eye-witness [Abid]. They submitted that no TIP was conducted so as to establish their identity. They also submitted that even if it were to be assumed that the present petitioners were present on the scene of the incident and that they shared the intention of causing disturbance in the marriage pandal, they did not have the knowledge that Kale possessed a knife and that he would inflict the fatal injury, therefore, the common intention to commit murder cannot be attributed to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the injured Ravinder was also not asked to identify the present petitioners.

(2.) MR . Pawan Sharma, the learned counsel who appeared for the State, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that all the persons have been named in the FIR. He also submitted that the petitioners were apprehended at the instance of the eye-witness [Kuldeep] and, therefore, no TIP was necessary. He submitted that as per the supplementary statement of Kuldeep, the present petitioners, namely, Jaggu, Rahul and Kamal were pointed out by the secret informer and also identified by him. Therefor; the identity stood established and there was no necessity of conducting TIP and the nonconduct of TIP would not be to the benefit of the present petitioners. He submitted that the charges have already been framed and, therefore, there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of bail.