Naveen @ Gaurav v. The State NCT of Delhi

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 14, 2017 gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Order reserved on: 2nd November,2017 Order pronounced on:14th November,2017 NAVEEN @ GAURAV ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Salman Hashmi, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Mr. Nawab Singh & Mr. Seezan hashmi, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …..Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Insp. Mr. Satyavir Janaula, P.S- Bindapur. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 231/2012 under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi. 2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Neetu, who stated that at night while he was returning home after meeting his relative, at about 9:30 pm, he reached at Sanjeev's House on Bindapur Road where he saw Sanjeev, Rajni Gautam, her huaband Rajkumar and Pritam standing there and was asked by Sanjeev to go home. After an hour, he was standing outside his house, Sanjeev came with a rod with Pritam, one other person who was having danda in his hand and Rajkumar was standing on the scooter. Then, they started abusing him and Sanjeev gave him a blow on his head with the iron rod. His brother came out of the house for his rescue but he too was beaten up by them and destroyed their Santro car. They even entered the house and assaulted them. Neetu went from there and brought PCR from Peer Baba but when he reached there, no one was there at the spot, only Hariraj was lying unconscious and blood was fusing out from his head. They took him to the DDU Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors and even his Father and Sister-in-law was injured. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since more than 4 years; that all the allegations leveled against the petitioner is false and fabricated and is devoid of any merit; that no prima facie evidence has been adduced against the petitioner by the prosecution; that 17 out of 36 prosecution witnesses have been examined and PW-2/Jai Narayan had not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile; that PW- 1/ Neetu had not made any specific allegations against the petitioner; that there is no chance of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, in the said circumstances bail be granted to the petitioner. 4. On the contrary, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner; that they have been charged for offences under Section 302/452/325/323/147/148/149/427/34 IPC for which maximum punishment is death or imprisonment for life; that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution to a large extent; that keeping in view the gravity of offence bail shall not be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon careful scrutiny of the case, this Court, as per record, observes that the petitioner herein was one of the accused(s) who caused grievous injury to Hariraj leading to his death and also causing injury to his family members. During recording of evidence of PW-1/Neetu Singh, it was deposed by him that "…I got up and I along with my parents came to the main gate of our house and opened the same and there I found that my brother Hari Raj and accused Sanjeev was holding a sword, accused Deepa holding a pistol, accused Naveen, Jimmy, Pritam, arvind, Ravinder, Raju, Rajkumar, his wife Rajni gautam, Bacchan (devar of accused Rajini gautam), Yogesh, @ Tunna, Chela, Shiva and some unknown persons were pres