VED PRAKASH ALIAS KALU Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application has been filed in respect of FIR No. 21/1999 dated 23.1.1999 registered at police station Mandawali concerning the murder of Shivani Bhatnagar. The petitioner is accused of having being party to the conspiracy to the murder of the said Shivani Bhatnagar. He is accused of having committed offences under Section 302, 120B, 411, 403, 404, 201 IPC. The alleged murder of Shivani Bhatnagar took place on 23.12.1999. The petitioner was arrested on 3.10.2002 and he has been in custody since then.

(2.) This is the second bail application moved by the petitioner before this Court. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.12.2003 as, at that stage, the prosecution witnesses qua the present petitioner were yet to be examined.

(3.) The prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Mr Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the witnesses pertaining to the petitioner have now been examined. He submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents. He submitted that an FIR No. 390/2001 in which the petitioner was allegedly involved, was a false case and a final report has been filed therein. Mr Hariharan submitted that the alleged murder took place on 23.12.1999 and it is almost three years later that the petitioner was arrested on 3.10.2002. On 6.10.2002 the petitioner is alleged to have made a disclosure statement. However, no recovery was made pursuant to the said statement. On 8.10.2002 a second disclosure statement is said to have been recorded pursuant to which, it is alleged that a camera was recovered from the petitioner's aunt's house at Gurgaon. The camera allegedly bore initials "RB" which, according to the prosecution, stood for Rakesh Bhatnagar, who was the husband of the deceased Shivani Bhatnagar. Mr Hariharan pointed out that between 30.7.2002 and 28.9.2002 all the other co-accused had been arrested and, therefore, it would not be an act of prudence on the part of the petitioner to continue to hold the camera when the co-accused were being arrested. He further referred to the cross-examination of Rakesh Bhatnagar with regard to the camera and tried to show that there were discrepancies in the evidence and in the ownership of camera.