SAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.PC.'), the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 469/2014 under Sections 302/307/147/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi. Status report is on record.

(2.) The present case is registered on the complaint of one Bijender who stated that on 30.07.2014 at about 09:30 p.m. a quarrel had taken place between him, his family members on one side and his neighbours namely Suresh, Ramesh and Naresh, their family members on the other; that during the said quarrel Suresh alongwith his brothers Ramesh and Naresh and wife/Preeti started manhandling him; that thereafter the complainant's brother in-law's son Ravi/deceased intervened alongwith his brothers Sachin, Naveen and Shyambir, to pacify the matter but in the meantime accused Suresh called his other associates namely Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant Birla, Sagar and Mukesh, who arrived at the spot with bats, knives and iron rods; that accused Sandeep caught hold of Ravi from behind whereafter accused Rahul stabbed Ravi with a knife and Sandeep rotated the knife and pulled it out after which blood started oozing out from Ravi's body; that all the accused persons fled away from the spot of incident after which the police was reported and Ravi was taken to the hospital where he was declared "brought dead";that the accused persons also inflicted injuries on complainant's son Vineet and his relative Sachin; that hence a complaint was lodged against all the accused persons namely Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant Birla, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh, Ramesh Kumar and Preeti.

(3.) Mr. Vikrant Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the petitioner had no reason to commit any offense against the deceased or his family; that the prosecution has produced no independent witness which creates a doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case; that PW-4 PW-5, PW-15 and PW-16 have not supported the case of the prosecution; that there is an inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses although they were all present in the hospital on 30/07/2014; that out of total of 31 prosecution witnesses, 21 witnesses have been examined and now only formal witnesses are left to be examined; that as the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of all the material witnesses has been concluded there is no chance of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence; that hence in the said circumstances bail be granted to the petitioners.