Ms. Sushma Sharma and Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma, Advocates v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Through: Ms. Sushma Sharma and Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R 12.02.2025 The present bail application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNSS’) has been filed on behalf of the applicant, seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 502/2015, registered at Police Station Pul Prahladpur, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 302/506/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’). 2. As disclosed from the Status Report, the brief facts of the present case are that on 05.12.2015, an information was received vide DD NO. 6A, and upon reaching the spot, it was found that the injured had been taken to hospital, and he had declared unfit for making statement. The present FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/506/34 of IPC, on the basis of statement of father of the injured. The father of the injured, in his statement, stated that that Dilip @ Duldul, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:12 Pradeep @ Tiger and the mother and sister-in-law of Pradeep had dragged Rakesh from gali and had threatened and beaten him with intention to kill him. During further investigation of the case, statements of witnesses Raju, Seema, Manoj, Beghraj, Mahtab, Dinesh, Ashok, Rajkamal and Devicharan were recorded. In their statements, they informed the police that at about

01.30 AM, when they had heard cries of the deceased from the house of accused Dilip, they had knocked the door but no one had opened the door. Thereafter, they had informed Raju, father of the deceased, who had called the police. Police had taken the injured Rakesh to the hospital, who was soaked in blood at that time. As per postmortem report as many as 20 injuries were found on his body. After completion of investigation the chargesheet was filed before the concerned court. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for more than six years, even though he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no substantial proof against the applicant regarding causing injury. It is stated that public/crucial witnesses have already been examined, and that the trial will take time to conclude. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail. 4. The learned APP appearing for the State, on the hand, argues that the allegations levelled against the present accused/applicant are serious in nature as he had brutally murdered the deceased, which is apparent from the injuries sustained by the deceased. It is also stated that the witnesses examined so far have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:12 applicant and learned APP for the State, and has gone through the material on record. 6. In the present case, the allegations against the present accused/applicant are that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, had dragged the deceased from the street, and the eyewitnesses have stated that at about 1:30 AM, they had heard cries from the house of the present accused. When they had rushed and knocked at the door, no one had opened the door, they had informed father of the deceased who had called the police. Thereafter, the deceased was taken out from the house of the accused persons who was drenched in blood. As per the statement of the father of the deceased, while the victim was being taken to the hospital, he had informed his father “papa in logo ne mujhe jabardasti gali se khinch kar apne ghar me band kar diya aur in sab ne Duldul@Dilip, Pradeep@Tiger, mummy Tiger ki Bhabhi ne mujhe pakad kar mara hai.” Since had been brutally injured, he had succumbed to his injuries. 7. The public witnesses in this case have supported the case of the prosecution. The postmortum report reveals that the deceased was brutally murdered as 20 injuries were found on his person and the cause of death, opined by the doctor, was “Septicemic shock consequent upon blunt trauma to abdomen all the injuries as described are ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt external forces/impact”. The same would also add to the gravity of the offence. 8. Furthermore, the weapon of the offence was recovered at the instance of the present accused/applicant. It is also to be taken note of that a danda was recovered at the instance of the present applicant, and the doctor had opined that the injury sustained by the deceased may have been caused by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:12 the said danda. It is also relevant to note that the prior to the incident in question, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the present applicant over parking of motor cycles and the present applicant had threatened to kill him. 9. The record also reveals that it was only after cries of the victim were heard from the house of the present applicant, a PCR call was made and after the intervention of the police, the door was opened in the presence of all the witnesses and the police, and the victim was found drenched in blood from the house of the present applicant, who had later succumbed to his injuries. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that the learned Trial Court has dropped five witnesses after compliance of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and that only 11 witnesses remain to be examined, and short dates are being given in the case by the learned Trial Court, and also the fact that brutality with which the deceased had been murdered, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. 11. In view of the above, the present application for grant of regular bail is dismissed. 12. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. FEBRUARY 12, 2025/zp SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:00:12