VIDYA BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Vidya Bhushan, seeks bail in the case FIR No. 26/86 under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code of police station Farash Bazar. Delhi. Jagram is first informant and an eye witness in this case and according to him when be was going towards Ramlila Ground, Jawahar Nagar be saw the petitioner coming from the side of one temple along with Rajesh alias Pappu, who is the son of the maternal uncle of the petitioner and Madhu Sudan alias Tittu, both residents of Mohalla Guriai and that all the above mentioned three persons including the petitioner were chasing Trilok Chand Singhal resident of the same mohalla, where the occurrence took place. It is further stated that these persons including the petitioner while chasing Trilok Chand Singhal were heard saying that the deceased should not be left alive and thereafter these accused persons stabbed Trilok Chand Singhal deceased on the back with knives whereupon the deceased fell down in front of the house of Subbash. The deceased raised an alarm shouting. "Pakro, Pskro" whereupon the petitioner along with his companions ran towards the Circular Road. There are two other eye witnesses also Trilok Chand Jain and Subhash. The deceased was then taken to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.

(2.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was an advocate, practising at Shabdara Courts and being a respectable person for that reason could not be expected to have committed such a heinous crime and further that there is a plea of alibi of big having been in the lock up of police station Ghaziabad from 8 p.m. on 20th January 19^6 to 12.15 p.m. on 21st January 1986 and that the alleged occurrence bad taken place at 5.45 a.m. on 21st January 1986. The learned counsel has further contended that placing him in Jail would destroy his entire career in life and that his plea of alibi ought not to be discarded despite its reliability and that bail be granted to him even though subject to the conditions.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. D R. Sethi, representing the State, has strenously contended that even though the petitioner is an advocate but that would not make him a respectable person in the face of his antecedents as he is an accused person in two other cases in which he is on bail and also in the face of strong enmity between him on the one hand and the deceased on the other and that the plea of alibi was only a fabricated one, which could only be decided during trial.