PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT., DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Andley, the leaned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Pradeep Kumar) submitted that the incident in which Som Veer lost his life occurred within the premises of Moti Lal Nehru College. It was the result, as per the prosecution, of a rivalry between two groups of students being the Najafgarh and Barthal groups. The groups were formed on the basis of students coming from the two villages of Najafgarh and Barthal. The rivalry allegedly arose out of the local college elections in which apparently the Najafgarh group was victorious. The present petitioner is said to belong to the Barthal group whereas the deceased (Som Veer) is said to have belonged to the Najafgarh Group, though he was not a member of Moti Lal Nehru College. Mr. Andley submitted that insofar as the allegations against the petitioner are concerned there is no direct involvement indicated. He submits that the petitioner is not alleged to have inflicted any injury on deceased (Som Veer). He submits that the Sessions Court had denied bail to the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner was a part of an unlawful assembly and since Som Veer (the deceased) was killed by the members of the unlawful assembly, all would be equally liable. He submitted that this premise is entirely wrong inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be regarded as a member of an unlawful assembly. He was a member of the college and he was within the perimeter of his college. Mr. Andley, referred to the provisions of Sec. 141 Penal Code to indicate that none of the ingredients of Sec. 141 Penal Code were satisfied so as to constitute an unlawful assembly. He further submitted that I was not as if the petitioner along with other persons had gone to another college or to another place to commit an offence. On the contrary, it was the deceased and others, who were outsiders and not even the members of the college, who had come to the college in which the petitioner was a student. He further submits that the entire allegations are based on the statement of one Jitender Kumar, who was a member of the Nazafgarh group. Reading the statement of Jitender Kumar, he pointed out that Jitender Kumar himself had stated that after the preliminary incidents, Jitender had hidden himself in the photo-stat room and, therefore, according to Mr. Andley, there is grave doubt as to whether Jitender was a witness at all to the subsequent events which include the assault on Som Veer which ultimately resulted in his death. In any event, Mr. Andley submits that the only role ascribed to the present petitioner in respect of the attack on the deceased (Som Veer) was that after he had been so attacked, the petitioner, as also others, kicked Som Veer's body to ascertain as to whether he was dead or not and, thereafter, they left. Therefore, according to Mr. Andley, the petitioner had no active role to play whatsoever in the murder of Som Veer. He submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.1.2006.

(2.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail. He continued with the line of argument that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly which attacked Som Veer and ultimately caused his death. Therefore, according to Mr. Malik, who appears on behalf of the State, it was not necessary to specifically indicate as to what role was played by the petitioner as long as it is indicated that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. Mr. Malik, however, could not deny the fact that the petitioner was a member of the college and the incident took place within the college. He could not deny the fact that the deceased (Som Veer) was not a member of the college and had come from outside. Apart from this, Mr. Mailk, pointed to the statement of Jitender Kumar to indicate that the entire incident had been narrated therein. However, he could not show as to what specific role was played by the petitioner apart from the statement that after Som Veer had been killed, he along with other kicked his body to ascertain as to whether he was dead or not. He also submitted that the assembly was unlawfully as it would be covered under Sec. 141 "thirdly" and the petitioner could be implicated merely on his being a member of such an assembly. He submitted that, there are also allegations of exhortation by the petitioner. He, therefore, opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I am of the prima facie view that the petitioner being a member of the college did not venture outside his college to commit the alleged offence. The alleged incident took place within the college and it is the group to which the deceased (Som Veer) belonged which came from outside and who were not members of the college. There is no specific role ascribed to the petitioner prior to the death of Som Veer which could be said to have resulted in his death and there are only allegations of general exhortation given by the group in common. The petitioner has also been in custody since 5.1.2006.