Sumit Kumar v. State of Delhi

order dated 19.07.2016.

(ii) In my view, the provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable while considering his bail as he is being tried as an adult and keeping in view the fact that he was already on bail in another case bearing FIR No.591/15, PS Badarpur in which charge was framed against him under Section 302/364A IPC read with Section 34 IPC but he was acquitted under Section 302 IPC and on the date of committal of the present offence, he was on bail in the said matter, so the possibility of the present petitioner committing another crime, if he is released on bail at this stage, is not ruled out.

(iii) The possibility of the petitioner threatening or coercing the prosecution witnesses is also not ruled out especially at this stage when the evidence of the material witnesses is being recorded.

¶9Keeping the above facts and circumstances in view, I am not inclined to release the present petitioner on bail. The application is accordingly dismissed.

TALWANT SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2022/pa

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 21.09.2022 + BAIL APPLN. 1763/2022 & CRL.M.A. 11594/2022 SUMIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa, APP for State. WSI Athine, PS Lodhi Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The petitioner has filed this bail application, being a Children-In- Conflict with Law (CCL), which arose from an order dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned ASJ in Sessions Case No. 362/2022 (FIR No. 29/2016, PS Lodhi Colony), which was registered under Section 302/392/411 IPC. Vide the said order, learned ASJ was pleased to dismiss the bail application of the present petitioner who has spent more than 5 years in judicial custody. Earlier, the petitioner was released on interim bail and he did not misuse the liberty of the interim bail. 2. The brief facts as mentioned in the bail application are that the FIR in question was registered on 03.02.2016 regarding death of a lady, aged about 67 years, whose daughter filed a complaint as she had found dead body of her mother lying on the floor of her house. The post-mortem report discloses the cause of death as 'smothering'. A neighbour had stated that on 31.01.2016 at about 3:00 PM, she had seen a youth with a black colour backpack talking with the deceased and on the next day, she came to know that her neighbour had died. 2.1 The present petitioner was arrested on 04.02.2016 on the basis of surveillance of the robbed mobile phone of the deceased, which was being used by CCL by inserting the SIM of his mother. 2.2 After interrogation, the story propounded by the prosecution is that on 31.01.2016 at about 3:00 PM, the CCL entered in the house of deceased on the pretext of being thirsty and when the deceased entered her own house, the CCL followed her and hit a steel pan on her head. When the victim tried to shout, he closed her mouth and nose with his hands and when she became motionless, he searched the wooden almirah and took mobile phone, IPad Mini and keys of the steel almirah and with the help of the key, he opened the almirah and robbed diamond, gold and silver jewellery articles, camera and cash. 2.3 After the incident, the CCL roamed at various places and after two days, he inserted a Vodafone SIM card in the mobile phone of the deceased. During further investigation, CCL identified and pointed out the place of occurrence and he also brought one steel pan (Pateela) from kitchen shelf and stated that he had hit the deceased with the said pan. 2.4 Post-mortem report was collected which shows that the cause of death was combined effect of smothering and strangulation. Regarding the steel pan, the opinion of the autopsy surgeon was that no marks of any external viable injury were present on the head of the deceased. 3. Charge sheet was filed under Section 302/392/411 IPC. Charges were framed against the CCL on 24.05.2018 and the trial proceeded. During trial, a neighbour of the deceased, namely, Ms. Purvi Sarkar had stated in the cross-examination that she had not seen any boy in front of the house of the deceased. She was confronted with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and she denied having made any such statement. 3.1 The petitioner was on interim bail from from 15.05.2020 to 15.03.2021. The petitioner had not misused the interim liberty so granted and he resumed his education and had also utilised his vocational education and training to help his father during the Covid period. 3.2 The bail application moved by the present petitioner on 19.07.2021 was dismissed on 23.07.2021. The next application was moved on 01.02.2022 which was disposed of after more than 2 months and 20 days. The CCL has been alleged to be involved previously in another case FIR bearing No.591/15, PS Badarpur in which he was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. The petitioner has prayed bail on the grounds that he has al