AMIT RATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused facing trial Along with his 10 co -accused in a case FIR No. 253/2001, under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, PS Parliament Street, relating to murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi, a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) which took place on 25th July, 2001 around 1.30 p.m.

(2.) THE petitioner, an arms dealer, allegedly sold an unlicensed 32 bore webley scot revolver and cartridges to his co -accused Sher Singh Rana which were used by his co -accused Dhan Prakash in commission of murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi. The petitioner was arrested on 2nd August, 2001 being a party to the criminal conspiracy hatched to commit murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi.

(3.) PLEADING for bail, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that according to prosecution, the petitioner had supplied a revolver and cartridges to his co -accused Sher Singh Rana in the presence of one Afaq Ahmed -PW -70, an employee of petitioner at his gun shop. Learned Counsel contended that in his entire statement before the Trial Court, PW Afaq Ahmed did not support the prosecution case in regard to alleged supply of the revolver and cartridges to co -accused Sher Singh Rana by the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, PW Afaq Ahmed being the solitary witness, there is none else to support the prosecution case in regard to alleged supply of the revolver and cartridges to co -accused Sher Singh Rana by the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner continues in custody ever since the date of arrest, i.e., 2nd August, 2001 and as out of 172 prosecution witnesses, only 86 PWs have been examined so far, it is unlikely that the trial would be concluded in near future. Learned Counsel argued that since the only witness Afaq Ahmed -PW, who could have deposed against the petitioner, has already been examined, there is no possibility of petitioner tampering with evidence in case of his release on bail during the pendency of the trial.