SANDEEP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application has been filed by the petitioner, Sandeep, who is facing trial in a Sessions Case arising out of FIR No. 235/2005 under Section 365/302/120-B/201/182/34 IPC registered at Police Station Welcome, Delhi on the allegations that he was seen going to the room of Brijpal by PW-11 Shweta, who has supported the case of the prosecution. Another circumstance against the petitioner is the recovery of a wrist watch at his instance. He was arrested on 29. 5. 2006.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present case are that on 5. 6. 2005 FIR No. 235/2005 was registered under Section 365 IPC at Police Station Welcome,delhi on the statement of Kavita, wife of Brijpal, wherein she alleged that she was married to one Omkar Singh and out of the said wedlock she had two sons and one daughter. However, in the year 1994 she was thrown out of the house by her husband Omkar Singh and subsequently, she was brought to Delhi by her dever Brijpal, whom she ultimately married in February, 2003. According to Kavita, her husband Brijpal used to go to his job at Pilibhit and would return after 8 or 10 days. She also stated that on 2. 5. 2005 her husband Brijpal left for his duty as usual along with an airbag containing Rs. 10,000/- in cash. On 7. 5. 2005 in the evening she received a call from Anil that Brijpal had not reached to his duty. Brijpal could not be located anywhere either by the complainant or by her brothers. Subsequently, the complainant went to the police station and gave her statement there. Thereafter, after about a month the complainant Kavita with the help of harinder got the plot of Brijpal located at Param Hans Vihar, Loni Border, ghaziabad, transferred in her name. All this was done by the complainant, kavita allegedly with the connivance of Harinder, who was residing on the first floor of her house, where she was residing on the ground floor. During investigation the statement of Shweta @ Meenu daughter of Kavita was recorded. According to her, Harinder, Sanjeev and Sandeep, the present petitioner, had come to their house and had an altercation with the deceased Brijpal Singh. Further, according to her, on 30. 4. 2005, Brijpal Singh and her mother Kavita quarreled with each other throughout the day and at night Harinder joined the quarrel. On 2. 5. 2005 at about 11. 30 pm the said girl Shweta had seen Harinder and co-accused Sanjeev and Sandeep, the present petitioner, going inside the room of Brijpal Singh. At about 2. 30 am she again noticed Harinder coming to her house and climbing up the stairs. Thereafter, she did not see Brijpal. On suspicion Harinder and Kavita were arrested. On the pointing out of co-accused Harinder, the present petitioner, sandeep was arrested. During interrogation, the petitioner allegedly disclosed that for the removal of the dead body of Brijpal, his car was used. The said dead body was thrown in Ganga Canal. The petitioner also allegedly produced a writ watch of deceased Brijpal. The petitioner had been in custody since 29. 5. 2006.

(3.) THE petitioner seeks bail on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no legal evidence against him. All the material witnesses have been examined and nothing has come out of those statements which could implicate him in the alleged murder of Brijpal. The only evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Trial Judge for rejecting the bail of the present petitioner is the statement of PW-11, Shweta. However, the said statement does not in any manner implicate the petitioner in the alleged murder. The statement of Shweta was recorded by the Police after about a year of the disappearance of Brijpal, which factor alone makes the statement unreliable. The alleged disclosure statement of the petitioner is also incorrect and unbelievable. The alleged recovery of the wrist watch of the deceased from the petitioner is also wholly unbelievable and unreliable and the same cannot be the circumstance to convict the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner has been in custody since 29. 5. 2006 and has four minor children to support. He is also not a previous convict. The petitioner had earlier applied for bail in the Court of Sessions but his application for bail was dismissed vide order dated 11. 8. 2008. The petitioner had earlier also applied for bail being Bail Application No. 251/2007 but the said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7. 2. 2007.