Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 84/24
FIR No. 508/23
PS GTB Enclave
U/s 304/34 IPC
State Vs. Ramesh and Ors.
(Applicant no. 1. Ramesh)
(Applicant no. 2 Abhishek
Kumar)
(Applicant no. 3 Gopal
Chaurasia)
16.08.2024
Present : Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Mahender Bhardwaj, Ms. Baby Rani, Pushkar
Bhardwaj and Ms. Meenakshi Tyagi, Ld. Counsels
for applicants/accused person namely Ramesh and
Gopal Chaurasia.
Sh. Gopalji, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
Abhishek Kumar.
These three applications u/s 439 Cr.P.C., which have
emanated out of a pending trial before this court moved on behalf
of applicants/accused persons for grant of regular bail are fixed
for clarifications, if any/order today. No clarification is required.
Ld. Counsels for applicants/accused persons have
submitted that these are second bail applications qua applicants /
accused persons i.e. Ramesh and Gopal Chaurasia, whereas this
is the first bail application of applicant/accused Abhishek Kumar;
that applicants/accused persons are in JC since 23.09.2023; that
applicants/accused persons are innocent persons and they have
been falsely implicated in the present case; that the present FIR
was got registered after two days of the alleged incident; that as
1 / 9
-- 1 of 9 --
per MLC, deceased had expired on 20.09.2023 at 05:59 am,
whereas as per the emergency OPD Card of GTB Hospital dated
20.09.2023, the arrival time of deceased was 05:54 am, which
shows that deceased had expired due to the negligence of the
hospital; that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of
applicants/accused persons as investigation is complete and
charge sheet has already been filed in the present matter; that
nothing has been recovered at the instance of applicants/accused
persons, however, whatsoever has been shown by police, the
same is planted; that no TIP of the applicants/accused persons
was conducted by the IO; that co-accused Pushpender Rajak has
been released on bail pursuant to order dated 01.08.2024 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; that first bail application of
applicant/accused i.e. Ramesh was dismissed by this court vide
order dated 15.02.2024, however, first bail application of
applicant/accused i.e. Gopal Chaurasia was dismissed as
withdrawn before this court vide order dated 20.02.2024; that
applicants/accused persons are also ready to furnish reliable
surety as well as to abide by all the terms and conditions, if any,
imposed by this court. Therefore, a prayer for regular bail has
been preferred.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed
the present applications by referring to the serious allegations
against the applicants/accused persons in the present case. He
has contended that there is an eye witness to the incident. He has
further contended that the present bail applications qua two
accused persons i.e. Gopal and Ramesh are not maintainable as
there is no change of circumstances since their last bail
applications were dismissed by this court. Thus, he has prayed
2 / 9
-- 2 of 9 --
for dismissal of the present applications.
I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of
both the sides and perused the material available on record.
In brief, the prosecution case is that on 20.09.2023.
a DD No. 70A w.r.t. admission of one Hafiz s/o Habibul in GTB
hospital by his sister, where he was declared dead, was received
at P.S. Seema Puri; that on receipt of said DD, SI Dharmender
along with HC Sachin reached GTB hospital and obtained MLC
of deceased; that on the basis of MLC of deceased, present FIR
No. 508/2023 u/s 304/34 IPC was registered; that during
investigation, IO reached at the spot and came to know that on
19.09.2023 at about 11.30 pm some public persons were running
while shouting chor-chor towards a person, who was
apprehended by said public persons and given beatings with fists
as well as leg blows and dandas by them; that CCTV cameras
installed near the spot were checked; that two tea stalls, in the
name and style of Babbu Tea Stall and Ramesh Tea Stall, were
situated at the spot; that the owners of said tea stalls namely
Babbu Rajak with his son Pushpender Rajak and Ramesh with
his son Gopal were seen at the spot in the CCTV footage; that on
22.09.2023, father of deceased along with his neighbour named
Sabana, who is an eye witness of the incident, came to P.S. and
IO along with the said eye witness Sabana reached at the spot,
where one Ramesh was sitting at his tea stall and upon seeing
him, Sabana stated that said Ramesh along with other persons,
were beating the deceased Hafiz; that said Ramesh confessed that
on the day of incident at about 11.30 pm some public persons
were shouting chor chor towards deceased Hafiz, who was
apprehended by said public persons and he along with his son
3 / 9
-- 3 of 9 --
Gopal, owner of adjacent tea stall namely Pushpender, another
person named Abhishek and some other public persons, had
beaten the deceased Hafiz with leg/fist blows and dandas; that
statement of said eye witness Sabana was recorded wherein she
stated that she was doing a job of receptionist at Kaushambi,
Anand Vihar and her duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 11.00 pm;
that on 19.09.2023 at about 11.35 pm, she was coming to her
house on scooty and when she reached at Chintamani Chowk,
she saw that some public persons were beating a person named
Hafiz, who was her distant neighbour, with leg/fist blows and
dandas; that she raised noise, upon which said public persons fled
away from the spot; that thereafter she telephonically informed
one Rakesh @ Chinki about the said incident and asked him to
inform the family members of Hafiz; that she managed to sit
Hafiz in an auto rickshaw and started riding on her scooty
alongside auto rickshaw; that when she along with Hafiz reached
at Seema Puri chowk, father of said Hafiz was standing there and
she handed over Hafiz to his father; that thereafter accused
Ramesh was arrested on the identification of Sabana; that during
the course of investigation, IO also recorded statement of another
eye witness namely Kalawati who stated that on 19.09.2023 at
about 7.30 pm she was coming to her house, suddenly a boy
came from behind and he snatched her mobile phone, upon
which she shouted chor chor and thereafter said boy kept the said
mobile phone on floor and fled away and while fleeing, he was
apprehended by some public persons; that IO again reached the
spot and during investigation accused persons Gopal, Pushpender
Rajak and Abhishek were also arrested in the present case; that
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet in the present case
4 / 9
-- 4 of 9 --
was filed before the court.
Before proceeding further, it may be noted that it
has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of Bail
is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of Bail. The object of Bail is neither punitive
nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than
verbal respect to the cardinal principle that punishment begins
after convictions, and that every man is deemed to be innocent
until duly tried and found guilty.
To begin with, the contention on behalf of Ld. Addl.
PP for the State that present applications are not maintainable
qua applicant/accused persons i.e. Ramesh and Gopal Chaurasia
as there is no change of circumstances, is without any force as
grant of bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to one of the co-
accused person Pushpender, who has more or less a similar role
as the other accused persons, very well amounts to a change of
circumstance in the present case.
Now, adverting to the applications in hand on
merits. Pertinently, in the present case, a DD was recorded to the
effect that a patient was brought in main casualty of GTB
hospital, who was declared as ‘brought dead’ and the same was
assigned to SI Dharmendra Kumar on whose statement, rukka
was prepared and thereafter upon obtaining the MLC and PM
report, present case FIR was registered u/s 304/34 IPC.
At the outset, it is worth mentioning that the case in
hand is at the stage of consideration on the point of charge and an
application u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC for conducting further investigation
5 / 9
-- 5 of 9 --
on behalf of complainant is pending. It has been contended by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for complainant
that as the application seeking further investigation is pending on
record and the order by virtue of which bail was granted by the
Hon’ble High Court to one of the co-accused Pushpender Razak,
was passed in ignorance of the pendency of the present
application as well as in the absence of complainant, therefore,
the present applications may not be considered and the same are
liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Pertinently, the said
contention does not seem to have any force in the light of fact
that further investigation and bail are entirely distinct aspects in a
trial, which are not dependent on each other by any stretch of
imagination. It is worthwhile to mention that adjudication of bail
application cannot wait for further investigation of the case to be
taken up, when otherwise there are other grounds for
consideration of the same, more so, as the said application
seeking further investigation has been filed belatedly. Even if it
is presumed that further investigation, if allowed, may yield more
evidence on record, then too, it may well be stated that the same
can be considered and appreciated during the course of trial.
Moreover, if the complainant/family members of deceased are
aggrieved due to the fact that one co-accused person has been
granted bail by the Hon’ble Court, being unaware of the
pendency of the application u/s 173 (8) Cr.PC before this court,
then too they are not rendered remediless and they are well
within their rights to approach the Hon’ble Court seeking suitable
remedy as per law.
Otherwise, investigation is complete and charge
sheet has been filed in the present case. Although, PM report
6 / 9
-- 6 of 9 --
states the cause of death as
hemorrhage and shock consequent
upon multiple injuries (extensive bruising and lacerations) over
the body as a result of blunt force trauma to the body, via injury
number 01 to 51, which are sufficient to cause death collectively,
in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were antemortem in
nature and produced by blunt force and are homicidal in manner,
but it may well be said that allegations against the
applicants/accused persons are still a matter of trial and the
veracity of the same can only be ascertained upon conclusion of
trial, more so, as none of the accused persons are seen in the
CCTV Footage placed on record. Further, it is a matter of record
that incident is of intervening night of 19/20.09.2023, but
surprisingly, the statement of eye-witness Shabana was only
recorded on 22.09.2023 and her supplementary statement was
only recorded on 23.09.2023, which seems to raise considerable
suspicion to the extent that as to why she took three days to visit
the police station, when otherwise she has stated herself to be
present on the spot at the time of incident. Also, TIP was not
conducted, which again does not inspire confidence. Most
importantly, one of the co-accused persons having similar role
has already been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi vide order dated 01.08.2023. In addition to this, the
applicants/accused persons are not found involved in any other
criminal case and recovery of rubber stick has already been
effected.
Moreover, applicants/accused persons have
remained incarcerated since 23.09.2023 i.e. nearly 11 months, so
considering the above discussion, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the applicants/accused persons in further
7 / 9
-- 7 of 9 --
custody, more so, as an application seeking further investigation
is pending on record and trial would take considerable time to
culminate as charge is yet to be framed in the present case. Last
but not the least, apprehension, if any, on behalf of prosecution
that witnesses may be influenced or intimidated, may be allayed
by imposing strict conditions.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances
in totality applicants/accused persons are admitted to bail on
furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one
surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. JMFC/Ld.
Link JM/Duty JM subject to the conditions that:
1. Applicants/accused persons shall appear in the court on each
and every date.
2. Applicants/accused persons shall neither threaten/influence
the eye-witness nor other prosecution witnesses in any
manner whatsoever.
3. Applicant/accused shall not visit within the close vicinity of
the residence of the eye-witness/prosecution witness.
4. Applicants/accused persons shall not tamper with the
evidence nor shall indulge in any illegal activities nor shall
commit any similar offence during the bail period.
5. Applicants/accused persons and their sureties shall intimate
this Court immediately of any change in their addresses and
shall also furnish their mobile numbers to the IO/SHO
concerned.
It is clarified that in case the applicants/accused
persons are found to be violating any of the above conditions,
then the same shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8 / 9
-- 8 of 9 --
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on merits of the case.
Applications are disposed of accordingly.
(Vineet Kumar)
ASJ-02/E-Court (Shahdara)
KKD/Delhi/16.08.2024
9 / 9
-- 9 of 9 --