NISHANT PUNYANI ALIAS SHANU ALIAS FADAKI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State

(2.) THE contention of the present petitioners is that they have been implicated falsely. THE name of the petitioner Nishant Punyani has not been disclosed in the FIR, in the statements of the eye-witnesses and even in the statement of the complainant. His name has been first mentioned in the statement of Mohan @ Sonu etc., whose statement has been recorded on 7.12.2011, whereas the incident is of 26.11.2011. No specific injury or overt act has been assigned to the present petitioner and similarly situated co- accused Hani @ Harish has already been released on bail.

(3.) AT this stage, veracity of the oral dying declaration cannot be weighed minutely. 12 other cases are also pending against the petitioner Lalit Kumar. The contention of the petitioner is that all the cases are of minor nature but list of the cases goes to show that cases for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 308, IPC are also pending against the present petitioner. Hence looking to the gravity of the offence, involvement of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner Lalit Kumar on bail.