- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 5 September 2022
- Bench
- Talwant Singh
- Case no.
- BAIL APPLN. 1441/2022
Judgment
TALWANT SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 05, 2022/mr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 05.09.2022 + BAIL APPLN. 1441/2022 HARENDER MAAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhiraj Ray and Mr. Mukul Malik, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. This is a bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. by and on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0360/2021 under Sections 307/120B/34/201 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act (FIR was initially registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act) dated 18.10.2021, registered at PS Kishangarh. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his uncle Sh. Ashok Mann was brutally murdered in broad day light on 12.02.2020 and the present applicant had witnessed the entire event and he was also injured in the incident. The attackers in the said case were Somraj @ Dhami, Devender @ Dev and Kalu. A case FIR No. 0057/2020 was registered at PS Kishangarh in this regard. Somraj @ Dhami was later on released on bail but the other two accused are still in custody. In order to pressurise the present applicant, a false story has been concocted that on 18.10.2021, when Somnath @ Dhami was returning after attending the Court in case FIR No. 0057/2020, he was accosted by unknown men who shot multiple rounds at his Toyota Fortuner vehicle. Somnath @ Dhami escaped unharmed and lodged the present FIR bearing No. 0360/2021. Within 24 hours, the Special Cell of Delhi Police nabbed the alleged shooters in another case. 2.1. The said Somnath @ Dhami had in the past approached the applicant and his family members to take back their statements in exchange for money and the present FIR is also an attempt to pressurise the applicant and his family members. The applicant has been pursuing the case regarding the murder of his uncle. The brother of the applicant Puneet Maan was detained by the police for more than 48 hours between 20.10.2021 to 23.10.2021 and he was tortured. Out of fear, the present applicant and his entire famiy were forced to flee and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and his family members. He surrendered before the Court on 28.10.2021. 2.2. The widowed Aunt of the applicant/accused Smt. Bimlesh Mann has been admitted to anticipatory bail. She has joined the investigation. The charge-sheet has been filed and applicant/accused has been charged for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 120B IPC. 2.3. In the charge-sheet, reliance has been placed only on the disclosure statement of accused persons and there is no material on record showing the involvement of the applicant/accused in the present case. Accused Manjeet Singh @ Mahal is stated to be the master mind of the alleged incident. 2.4. Brother of the applicant was granted regular bail by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 11.04.2022. This relief was denied to the present applicant on the ground that he was was named in the FIR and the allegations against the present applicant are grave in nature. 2.5. The petitioner has prayed bail on the ground of parity as three other accused persons, namely, Smt. Bimlesh Mann, Mukesh @ Sonu and Puneet Maan are already on bail. The second ground of bail is that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the present case is nothing but an attempt to pressurise and coerce the applicant and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner were not adequately dealt with in the order rejecting his bail. It has been further submitted that the present case is nothing but an oblique motive to pressurise the applicant. Since, the accused/applicant has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 120B IPC, so the substantive offence under Section 307 IPC and relevant provisions of the Arms Act are not made out against him. The accused/applicant has a potent defence which he shall be proving during trial. There is no possibility of tampering with the evi
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.