LALIT Vs. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant bail application, the applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 163/2018 under Section 307 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS South Campus. As per the FIR, incident occurred at about 10.40 p.m. on 29.07.2018 near Mother Dairy, Satya Niketan, New Delhi. In the statement of the injured, he has specifically named the applicant for having fired the shots with the revolver in the stomach and the thigh. Charge-sheet is stated to have filed. Ballistic examination of the weapon allegedly used by the applicant is since received.

(2.) Mr. Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel strenuously contends that the applicant is falsely implicated. In his submissions, there was no material with the prosecution to show that the bullet injuries sustained by the injured were fired from the revolver of the applicant. In his submissions, the ballistic report may show that the revolver of the applicant was in working order and capable of firing, it, ipso facto could not be a reason to assume that the shots with which the injured sustained bullet injuries were fired therefrom. Ld. Sr. counsel also strenuously contended that there were serious discrepancies as regards the actual time of occurrence of the incident and the time, the applicant visited the spot. In his submissions, as per the CCTV recordings, the applicant had visited the spot during the period from 10.39 p.m. to 10.41 p.m., whereas, as per the MLC of the injured Lalit Dagar, the incident occurred at 10.30 p.m. It was also contended that the applicant was a lawyer practicing at Saket Courts and an active member of the students' union. In his submissions, the applicant's student's union activities had resulted into his false implication in few cases, though, he has been a victim by himself, and, that, as per the prosecution story, besides the applicant, the injured and others, who are cited as witnesses, were intoxicated at the time of the incident. It also comes to be contended that the injured himself was involved in many criminal cases and so were the prosecution witnesses and therefore, false implication of the applicant could not be ruled out. Thus, according to him, the prosecution case at a first glance itself was not believable, and, there were apparent serious inconsistencies and infirmities. Elaborating so, Mr.Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel strenuously contended that the instant case invited the application of the principle of bail rather than jail. In support of such submissions Mr. Mittal, ld. Sr. counsel also placed reliance upon Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 159/2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10244/2010) decided on 16.01.2012; Zahur Haider Zaidi vs. Central Bureau of Investigations, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 643; and, Vivek Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Cr.A. 2/2000 decided on 01.01.2000.

(3.) Mr. Srivastava, ld. APP on his part however submitted that the bullets which caused the injuries could not be retrieved as those remain embedded in the body of the injured and as per the doctor's opinion, their retrieval may be dangerous to the life of the injured. In his submissions however, the injured has specifically named the applicant to have fired with his revolver, found to be in working order and capable of firing, which, by itself was sufficient to connect the applicant to the subject offence. Also, in his submissions, the applicant was involved in various criminal cases and his release on bail may hamper fair trial.