RAKESH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 187/2001 under Sections 399/402/34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act. He is in judicial custody for almost five years. It may be noted that the last application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail before the learned ASJ was dismissed by him on 1.6.2006. He has, accordingly, filed this petition for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is no evidence or incriminating material against him.

(2.) As per the allegations made in the FIR, on 24.5.2001 team of Anti-Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, received information. As per the allegations, H.C. Ram Kishan in the North East District, received information to the effect that one gang with large quantity of arms and ammunition shall be assembled for committing an act of dacotiy in N-62, Navin Shahadara and in case the raid is done immediately, then all of them can be overpowered with the arms and ammunition. Raiding party, accordingly, committed raid and the accused persons including the petitioner were apprehended with arms and ammunition in their possession. Various types of weapons were found in possession of different persons. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was apprehended by head constable Vishnu Bhagwan with a knife. The allegations, at the time of raiding qua the petitioner, in the FIR are as under:

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is facing incarceration for almost five years. Evidence of only seven public witnesses have been recorded out of 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution and trial which is going at snail's pace, is going to take long time; nothing incriminating has been recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner and the case under Arms Act is also not made out as admittedly the knife allegedly recovered is less than 15 cms. i.e. less than six inches. It is also pointed out that eye-witnesses examined till now have turned hostile and they have not implicated the petitioner. It is pointed out that even the owner of the house, from where the accused persons including petitioner were allegedly apprehended, has failed to identify the accused persons in the court and has turned hostile.