PRAVEEN MITTAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial alongwith 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 Advocate by profession, allegedly supplied a revolver and cartridges to the prime accused Sher Singh Rana which were used in commission of murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi. This apart, the petitioner is also alleged to have had rendered advice to help his co-accused Sher Singh Rana to create a false alibi. The petitioner was arrested on 2nd August, 2001 being a party to the criminal conspiracy hatched to commit the murder Smt. Phoolan Devi.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of prosecution case, the petitioner had supplied a revolver and cartridges to his co-accused Sher Singh Rana in the presence of one Pankaj Kalra-PW-62. Learned senior counsel contended that in his entire statement before the Trial Court, Pankaj Kalra-PW 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. It was argued that co-accused Sher Singh Rana initially did not name the petitioner in his earlier two disclosure statements recorded by the police and it was only in his third disclosure statement that he is alleged to have had told that a revolver and cartridges were supplied to him by the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel, except Pankaj Kalra-PW, there is no other evidence to support the prosecution case in regard to alleged supply of 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 his 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 senior counsel argued that since the only witness Pankaj Kalra-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.