SATBIR RANA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Sec. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 507/2014 under Sec. 302/34 of IPC, at Police Station Ghazipur, Delhi.

(2.) In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the complainant - Sanjay Kumar on 21.07.2014 received the information that his brother Vinod Kumar was murdered. Sanjay Kumar, the complainant lodged a case expressing suspicion over Nazim and Shakir. The reason for suspecting them for murder was that earlier also, the aforesaid persons namely Nazim and Shakir had caused injuries to another cousin of the complainant namely Lala @ Rajveer. During the course of investigation of the case, one Ravi Chopra made a statement before the police that some days prior to the date of incident, one Nikhil Rana was spotted near the place of occurrence. Due to of the suspicion veering around Nikhil Rana, he was arrested. After his arrest, Nikhil Rana made a disclosure statement that it was at his instance that the deceased was killed. Other materials which have been brought on record against the petitioner are that the petitioner had misled the complainant by raising suspicion against others and he was bearing grudge against the deceased as he suffered a loss in the elections for the post of Pradhan at the hands of the deceased.

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the FIR recorded at the instance of Sanjay Kumar, it is stated that there was enmity between the deceased Vinod with Nazim and Shakir who are resident of Ghazipur Dairy Farm and they had caused injuries in the past to his cousin brother namely Lala @ Rajveer, in respect of which a criminal case No. 437/2014 with Police Station Ghazipur, Delhi was also registered. But still the petitioner as well as Nikhil Rana, Satbir and two other persons were charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 120 -B read with Sec. 302 of IPC and whereas Nazim, Shakir and Rashid were discharged despite they were named by the complainant in the FIR.