Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: (i)Bail Application No. 1633/2024
State vs. Rohit @ Bittu
(ii)Bail Application No. 1622/2024
State vs. Rocky
FIR No. 233/2024
U/s 304/34 IPC
Police Station: Harsh Vihar
Video Conferencing is functional.
10.09.2024
Common order on two separate Bail Applications
Present: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None for accused/applicants.
IO/SI Nitin in person.
1. Vide this common order, this Court shall dispose of two
separate applications u/s 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C) seeking grant of
regular bail to accused/applicants Rohit @ Bittu and Rocky.
2. Arguments already heard on 09.09.2024.
3. It is stated by respective Ld. Defence counsels that both
the accused/applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case
merely to solve the matter. It is also submitted that accused/applicants
have been undergoing judicial custody since 30.05.2024 and 10.06.2024
respectively. It is submitted that the alleged matter is dated 21.04.2024
and same was reported to the police on 24.04.2024 upon which the
present FIR was registered. It is stated that nothing has been recovered
from the possession of any of the accused/applicants during
investigation. It is argued that one of the co-accused namely Pankaj has
been granted bail in the present matter. It is submitted that there are
multiple contradictions in the statements of witnesses reflecting
fabrication and manipulation to implicate the accused persons.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
It is further stated that chargesheet in the present case
has been filed and same is pending for committal to the Ld. Court of
Sessions after scrutiny of documents. It is emphasised that postmortem
report of deceased is silent with respect to cause of death by kick and
fist blows or by any such blunt force. It is also stated that
accused/applicants shall abide by all the conditions imposed by the
Court, if ordered to be released on bail.
4. The bail applications have been opposed by Ld. Addl.
PP for State assisted by IO arguing that there are serious allegations of
offence u/s 304 IPC against both the accused/applicants and therefore,
they be not granted bail. It is clarified that accused Pankaj was admitted
to default bail and not on merits. It is also argued that
accused/applicants played active role in the commission of offence and
therefore, do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Submissions heard. Record perused.
6. This Court has carefully perused the TCR. The statement
of witnesses recorded by IO particularly the statement of one
Himanshu, Priyanshu and Himanshu @ Lingodi is categorical regarding
the presence and role of both the accused/applicants. It is the allegation
in the said statements that accused/applicants alongwith their co-
accused extended merciless beatings to the victim/deceased Harsh. All
the witnesses have
prima facie supported the said version of the
incident.
Prosecution has
prima facie explained that since
victim/injured had suffered internal injury, he did neither make a PCR
call nor did he visited the hospital for MLC. As per the death summary
attached to the chargesheet, victim/injured visited the surgery
emergency firstly on 21.04.2024 with complaint of pain in abdomen
and vomiting thrice. He was discharged after medication. He again
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
reported on 22.04.2024 with same complaint when he was admitted at
diagnosed of ‘peritonitis’. He was operated upon during this period.
Victim/injured finally succumbed to his injuries on 28.04.2024. the
concerned doctor opined the cause of death to be
spetic shock as a
result of peritonitis due to traumatic perforation of duodenum
consequent upon blunt force trauma to the abdomen.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the nature of injury suffered
by victim and the cause of death opined by concerned doctor
prima
facie corroborates the statements of witnesses who stated that victim
was given merciless beatings by leg and fist blows. In other words, the
perforation of duodenum, which is a life threatening condition, occurs
the upper lining of small intestine splits open, and such a condition is
possible with blunt force on the abdomen.
8. There may be some contradictions in the manner of
investigation carried out by IO, and due to lapse of the IO, one of the
accused (Pankaj) may have been granted default bail, however, the
same cannot be a ground to enlarge any of the accused/applicants on
bail.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the allegations against
accused/applicants are grave and grant of bail to any of them would
adversely affect the proceedings before the concerned Court. Further,
the probability of accused/applicants approaching, influencing or
threatening the public witnesses cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, no
reasonable or justified ground to enlarge accused/applicants namely
Rohit @ Bittu and Rocky on bail is made out at this stage. Bail
applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
10. Nothing in the present order shall tantamount to
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of this case.
11. Applications are disposed of accordingly.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
12. In compliance of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case titled
‘In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail’, Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023, copy of this order be sent to
applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
13. Order
dasti from Bail Filing Section.
14. TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
(ARVIND BANSAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi/10.09.2024
-- 4 of 4 --