Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IA No. 4/24 in SC No. 22/2024
Ravin vs. State
FIR No. 382/2023 U/s 302/201/419/471/120B/34 IPC
PS Mukherjee Nagar
28.11.2024
The undersigned is working as Link Judge for the Court of
Ld.ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which is a vacant
Court.
Matter taken up today on an application u/s 483 BNSS (U/s 439
Cr.PC) moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ravin for grant of
regular bail.
Present : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and Sh. Shri Ram Yadav,
Ld. Counsels for the complainant.
Sh. Pradeep Khatri and Sh. Uttkarsh Singh Chhikara,
Ld. Counsels for the applicant/accused.
IO/Inspector Rajeev Kakkar is also present.
Order on the bail application of accused Ravin
1. This is an application u/s 483 BNSS (u/s 439 Cr.PC)
moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ravin for grant of regular
bail.
2. Reply has already been filed by the IO and the same is
on record.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused seeks bail for the
applicant/accused on the following grounds :- (i) The
applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
the present case; (ii) Co-accused Rajpal has already been granted bail
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; and (iii) The applicant/accused
is in JC since 29.09.2023; it will take considerably long time to
conclude the trial and he cannot be kept in JC for an indefinite
contd........
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
IA No. 4/24 in SC No. 22/2024
Ravin vs. State
FIR No. 382/2023 U/s 302/201/419/471/120B/34 IPC
PS Mukherjee Nagar
period.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly opposed the
present application and has submitted that the charges are yet to be
framed and the further investigation is being conducted by the police;
role of suspect Pinki i.e. wife of the main accused Surender is under
examination and sister of the applicant/accused and deciding the bail
application before framing of charges would amount to pre-judging
the matter with regard to the role of applicant/accused Ravin. It is
accordingly prayed that since the allegations against the
applicant/accused are of very serious in nature, the present
application may be dismissed.
5. I have also given oral hearing to the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant and he has opposed the present application on the
ground that the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation
carried out by the police and an application seeking monitoring of
the same has also been filed before the Court of Ld. ACJM; one lady
had accompanied the applicant/accused Ravin to a
dhaba from where
Aadhar card and other identity cards of the deceased were collected
and the said lady is still untraceable; the voice sample of accused
Surender and applicant/accused Ravin was obtained during the
investigation which is under examination of FSL. There is no parity
with co-accused Rajpal who has already been granted bail by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as the role of said co-accused Rajpal
contd........
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
IA No. 4/24 in SC No. 22/2024
Ravin vs. State
FIR No. 382/2023 U/s 302/201/419/471/120B/34 IPC
PS Mukherjee Nagar
had started 20 days after the incident while the role of the
applicant/accused Ravin started just after the incident. As per the
CDR analysis, the applicant/accused and the main accused Surender
were in regular touch with each other even prior to the incident. The
role of co-accused Rajpal, who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble
High Court, is different as he had only arranged the sim card on the
asking of the applicant/accused.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused, Ld.
Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have
perused the record.
7. As per the chargesheet, the applicant/accused is the brother
in law (saala) of the main accused Surender; accused Surender was
working in Delhi Police as a Constable and the deceased Monika
Yadav was also working in Delhi Police; both of them were in
relationship. However, since accused Surender was married, the
deceased was not willing to continue with relationship. Frustrated
with her refusal, accused Surender called her to a seluded place and
threw her from a bridge; As per further allegations, as a result of fall,
Monika became injured, but did not die immediately. Thereafter in
order to kill her, accused Surender thrust her in water leading to her
death. The applicant/accused Ravin is stated to be a close relative
i.e. brother in law (
saala) of main accused Surender and as per the
CDR, he was in regular touch with accused Surender even prior to
contd........
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
IA No. 4/24 in SC No. 22/2024
Ravin vs. State
FIR No. 382/2023 U/s 302/201/419/471/120B/34 IPC
PS Mukherjee Nagar
the incident. The role of sister of the applicant/accused is also under
suspecion and further investigation is being carried out by the police.
Matter is at the initial stage and even the charge is also yet to be
framed. There is no parity with co-accused Rajpal as he only
allegedly got arranged the sim on the asking of applicant/accused
Ravin. As per the chargesheet, applicant/accused Ravin was also
impersonating as a boyfriend of Monika and was calling her family
members in order to mislead them. The allegations against
applicant/accused Ravin are of gravest kind. In the above facts and
circumstances and in view of nature and gravity of offence, no
ground is made out to grant bail to the applicant/accused, at this
stage. The present application is accordingly dismissed.
8. Copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for the
accused and to the IO and be also sent to Jail Superintendent for
information.
9. Put up for purpose fixed on 04.12.2024.
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
ASJ-03, North District
Rohini Courts,
Delhi/28.11.2024
-- 4 of 4 --