- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 12 September 2022
- Bench
- Talwant Singh
- Case no.
- BAIL APPLN. 87/2022
Judgment
TALWANT SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2022/nk/pa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 12.09.2022 + BAIL APPLN. 87/2022 & CRL.M.A. 7470/2022 MAHESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bakshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Mohan, Mr. Manoj Gupta, Mr. Bhanu Kathpalia and Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Inspector Karan Singh, PS Prashant Vihar. Mr. R.K. Tarun and Mr. Abhay Solanki, Advocates for complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The petitioner has filed the regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 161/2020, registered at PS Prashant Vihar under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 IPC. 1.1 It has been submitted that petitioner was formally arrested on 18.06.2020 and since then he is in custody and he applied for bail before the learned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2020. 1.2 Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing bail application no. 3581/2020 but the prosecution submitted that there were two material witnesses namely Ms. Poonam and Mohd. Chand Siddiqui, so, the petitioner withdrew the said bail application with liberty to file afresh after examination of the said two witnesses. The petitioner recently moved an application before the Trial Court but the same was also dismissed on 06.01.2022. Hence the present bail application has been filed. 1.3 As per the applicant, his arrest was illegal; story of the prosecution is that applicant was arrested upon disclosure by co-accused on 18.06.2020, however, the applicant was illegally arrested on 17.06.2020 from his residence at about 9:50 PM without giving any information to the family. The arrest memo does not contain the signature of any family member. The CCTV footage installed at the residence of the applicant recorded on 17.06.2020 proves this fact that the family members of the applicant were not allowed to meet him. Even an email was sent to the Prime Minister's office by the younger brother of the applicant. The applicant was arrested only to be coerced for unreal confession prior to the disclosure made by co- accused on 18.06.2020. The applicant was physically targeted by the IO. 1.4 As far as the recoveries are concerned, it has been submitted that the case of the prosecution is that it had recovered the incriminating articles/belongings of the deceased being a towel and a piece of rope at the instance of the present applicant. The plastic rope and towel were recovered from near Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha, Nilothi, Delhi. The personal articles of the deceased were recovered from almirah lying at Shop No. 34, Ramnagar Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. The possibility of planting these recoveries by the IO cannot be ruled out. The police official visited the house of the victim on 18.06.2020 and took several items belonging to the deceased without making any seizure memo. The wife of the deceased was also taken to the police station by the police and she had been kept there for an entire day and she also sent an email to the PMO regarding the conduct of the police officials. The police have made no efforts to recover the footwear and purse of the deceased, no efforts were made to recover the 'liquid' which was allegedly used to smother the deceased before strangulating him. 1.5 The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged vehicle used in the crime being 'Maruti Alto' was also planted. No movement of the said car has been captured anywhere. As per the post- mortem, all the clothes of the deceased were blood stained but during forensic examination of the said vehicle, not even a single stain of the blood or any other biological clue material was collected. 1.6 As per the petitioner, this is a case of tampering with evidence and implication of innocent applicant. The articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner were 8 in number but when the bag was opened for
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.