RAJA ALIAS DAYANAND Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this is the third bail application which has been filed before this Court insofar as this petitioner is concerned. The first one was rejected by a detailed order of this Court on 25.11.2002. A second bail application was moved and that was also withdrawn because at that stage, it was submitted before the court that certain changed circumstances had taken place which necessitated the withdrawal of the bail application for the purposes of moving the same before the Sessions Court. By an order dated 18.3.2005, this Court had permitted withdrawal of the said bail application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court. Thereafter, an application for bail was moved before the Sessions Court.

(2.) Various circumstances were raised on behalf of the petitioner for the consideration of the Court indicating that these circumstances were new and, therefore, a second bail application could be entertained. One circumstance was the question of the petitioner being arrested at 9 p.m. by the same team of police officials who were shown present at 9 p.m. at a different place for the arrest of the accused Vinay. The other circumstance that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the initial report of the incident lodged at the PCR Van was at the instance of Trilok, the brother of the deceased, at 6.31 a.m. A subsequent information was also provided by another brother of the deceased, namely Jatan at 7.01 a.m. It is indicated that a different set of accused have been named as being responsible for the death of his brother. The learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that the medical records also appear to be tampered inasmuch as the original record only showed ?history of assault? whereas the report submitted by the police shows ?history of gun shot? by crossing out the word ?assault?. He submits that this interpolation is not borne out from the record of the hospital which was subsequently summoned before the Court. Furthermore, he submits that even in the MLC, the name of other persons, namely, Darshan Singh and others are mentioned and not the present accused. He further submits that the Radiologist, who was to conduct an inquiry for the location of the bullet, has indicated that there are no bone injuries nor has any bullet been seen. However, the postmortem report indicates two bullet injuries. One on the back/shoulder. Another bullet injury was shown at the back of the skull moving towards the exit point over the left eye. He submits that these are all contradictory pieces of evidence which falsify the entire prosecution case and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. He further states that the petitioner is in custody for five years and one month and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at an early date. He also submits that the MLC as well as PCR reports were made available to the petitioner only during the course of trial after the rejection of the first bail application.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail by stating that there are eye witnesses as indicated in the FIR. The petitioner has been named, and the postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case. She further states that there are other pieces of evidence which overwhelmingly go to show the complicity of the present petitioner. She further submitted that neither Trilok nor Jatan were eye witnesses and, therefore, they have not been cited as eye witnesses. She further submits that the accused was also denied bail on the ground of his tampering with the evidence.