Interim Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
SC No. 101/2024
State Vs. Rajan Chaudhary and ors.
(applicant/accused Rajan Chaudhary)
FIR No. 698/2023
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 307/34 IPC.
22.05.2025
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused.
1. By virtue of this order, 3rd application u/s 483 BNSS on
behalf of applicant/accused seeking regular bail shall be disposed
of.
2. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has submited that first
bail application of applicant/accused was dismissed by Ld. ASJ
(Shahdara) vide order dated 09.02.2024; that second bail
application of applicant/accused was dismissed as withdrawn;
that applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case; that applicant/accused has clean antecedents; that
complainant has been examined in the present case; that
applicant/accused is no more required for any custodial
interrogation. It has been further submitted that applicant/accused
is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by the court, if he
is released on bail. Thus, Ld. Counsel has prayed for grant of bail
to the applicant/accused.
3. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State has opposed the present
application by referring to the serious nature of allegations
against applicant as well as evidence on record in the present
case. It has thus been prayed that bail application may be
dismissed.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
4. I have heard respective submissions on behalf of both
sides and perused the material on record.
5. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2023,
upon receipt of DD No. 75A regarding firing by 7-8 persons in
front of house of caller, ASI Radhey Shyam reached the spot and
recorded statement of complainant, who stated that on 24.12.2023
at about 5.00 pm, one boy namely Danny, who was residing in
the same gali, along with his friend were beating a school going
boy; that said boy asked for help from complainant and
complainant intervened in the matter and said to accused Danny
and his friend that they should not quarrel with kids, upon which
accused Danny and his friend left while giving threats to
complainant by saying
tumhe dekh lenge; that on the said date at
about 10.45 pm, complainant along with his brother Mangal were
shutting down their shop and his brother Surender was
purchasing some goods from nearby grocery shop, when accused
Danny along with his friend came there on a motorcycle, which
was driven by another boy, and they all started abusing the
complainant and his brothers; that when complainant objected to
the same, accused Danny took out one katta from the pocket of
his pant and fired a shot towards complainant, however,
complainant escaped from the same; that thereafter, friend of
accused Danny, who was with him at the time of morning
incident, took out a katta from the pocket of his pant, but brother
of complainant caught hold of him and knocked him down; that
thereafter accused Danny and his friend fled away from the spot,
however, the third boy, who was driving the motorcycle, was
caught by complainant with the help of public persons, whose
name they came to know was Rajan. On the basis of statement of
complainant, FIR in the present case was registerd under Section
-- 2 of 5 --
3
307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act against accused persons and after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
concerned court.
6. To begin with, applicant has been charged for the offences
u/s 307/34 IPC along with other co-accused persons, whereby all
the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention,
are stated to have fired bullet shots with a desi katta upon the
complainant. As far as specific role attributed to the
applicant/accused is concerned, he is stated to be driving the
motorcycle, on which accused persons came at the spot at the
time of alleged incident. However, this court cannot lose sight of
the fact that no overt role in commission of alleged offence has
been ascribed to the applicant/accused. Further, no weapon of
offence has been recovered from or at the instance of
applicant/accused. Also, it is not the case of prosecution that
applicant/accused fled away from the spot like other co-accused
persons after the alleged firing incident. Infact, it has been
strongly argued by Ld. counsel for applicant/accused that
applicant had only given lift to other accused persons, as they
were known to him and had he been involved in the alleged
offence, then applicant had all the time to flee away from the spot
and there was no reason for him to have stood there at the spot.
Further, during the course of arguments, it has been pointed out
on behalf of applicant/accused that there is nothing on record to
suggest that applicant ever made any attempt to escape from the
spot. Further, it has been argued that the aforesaid action on
behalf of applicant/accused shows his
bona fide conduct, which
clearly indicates that he has not committed the alleged offence
and it also shows that he was not aware about the plan of other
co-accused persons. It is worth mentioning that the aforesaid
-- 3 of 5 --
4
arguments, to a certain extent, do seem to have some force in the
light of testimonies on record and so far as collusion of
applicant/accused with other accused persons, if any, is
concerned, the same may be ascertained at an appropriate stage
after culmination of trial.
7. Further, this case is at the stage of prosecution evidence
now and during the course of the same, 05 witnesses have been
examined so far, which includes all material public witnesses i.e.
PW1/complainant Karan Singh, PW3 Mangal Singh, PW4 Ravi
and PW5 Surender Singh. Importantly, other remaining witnesses
are either police officials or doctors or formal witnesses,
therefore, there is no likelihood of influencing/intimidating the
said witnesses. Also, applicant/accused has not been found
involved in any other criminal case and nothing has been
recovered from his possession in the present case.
8. Moreover, applicant/accused has remained incarcerated
since 25.12.2023 i.e. almost 1.5 years, so considering the above
discussion, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant/accused in custody any further, more so, as conclusion
of trial will take substantial time, as out of 13 witnesses cited by
the prosecution in the present case, 08 witnesses are still to be
examined. Last but not the least, apprehension, if any, on behalf
of prosecution may be allayed by imposing strict conditions.
9. Accordingly, in view of above discussion as well as facts
and circumstances in totality, applicant/accused is admitted to
bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one
surety of like amount to the satisfaction of this court/Duty JMFC
subject to the conditions that:-
1. Applicant/accused shall appear in the court on each and every
-- 4 of 5 --
5
date.
2. Applicant/accused shall not threaten or influence the remaining
prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
3. Applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence nor shall
indulge in any illegal activities nor shall commit any similar
offence during the bail period.
4 Applicant/accused and his surety 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 applicant/ accused is found to
be violating any of the above conditions, then the same shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on merits of the case.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Vineet Kumar)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/22.05.2025
-- 5 of 5 --