Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: I.A.No.05/2025
S.C.No.349/2024
FIR No.284/2024
U/s 307/147/148/149/188 IPC r/w Sec.30/40 Delhi Excise Act
Police Station: GTB Enclave
State vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh
Video Conferencing is functional.
11.02.2025
Order on Regular Bail Application.
Present: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Shri Ashutosh Prajapati, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
1. This is ‘second’ application u/s 483 BNSS seeking grant
of regular bail to accused/applicant.
2. It is the case of prosecution that accused/applicant
alongwith his associates in furtherance of their common intention and
forming a unlawful assembly, attacked the complainant and his friend
Hazi Shamshad and caused them multiple injuries. On the basis of
statement of complainant, present FIR was registered.
3. It is stated by Ld. Defence counsel that
accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by
complainant and his friends. It is also submitted that accused/applicant
has been undergoing judicial custody since 12.09.2024. It is argued that
investigation of the present case is complete and chargesheet stands
filed. It is submitted that eight co-accused persons have already been
granted bail in this case. It is stated that no weapon of offence has been
recovered from or at the instance of accused/applicant and there is no
specific allegation against him for causing any injury to the
complainant/victim. It is contended that matter is at the stage of
consideration on charge. It is also stated that accused/applicant shall
abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court, if ordered to be
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
released on bail.
4. The bail application has been opposed by Ld. Addl. PP
for State arguing that there are serious allegations against the
accused/applicant.
5. Submissions heard. Record perused.
6. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 dismissed the
first bail application of accused/applicant on merits. While deciding the
said bail application, the Court observed as follows:
“7.
In the opinion of this Court,
accused/applicant alongwith co-accused Rehman initiated
the entire dispute with the complainant and the said dispute
resulted in the entire episode wherein complainant and his
friend suffered injuries. The role of accused/applicant is
clear and categorical and is not inextricable from the role
of other co-accused particularly Rehman and Israr Malik.
As such, the present bail application cannot be considered
on a different footing than the bail application of the other
two co-accused which was dismissed on 28.10.2024.
8.
The present bail application is,
accordingly, dismissed.”
7. In fact, this Court dismissed the regular bail application
of co-accused Abdul Rehman and Israr Malik vide order dated
28.10.2024 and observed as follows:
“A bare reading of the chargesheet would provide that
there are clear and categorical allegations against the
accused/applicant to have attacked the complainant
alongwith his associates/co-accused and injured with
different weapons made of iron/metal. It is also the
allegation that complainant and injured were repeatedly
attacked by co-accused namely Israr Malik and Abdul
Rehman. The present FIR has been registered against the
accused/applicant by name.
“7.The argument of Ld. Defence counsel that other co-
accused have already been admitted to bail and therefore,
he deserves parity, cannot be considered as the allegations
against accused/applicant is distinct from allegations
against other co-accused already admitted to bail.
8.
In the opinion of this Court, matter is at
initial stage and consideration of charge and
complainant/injured are yet to be examined. A probability
of accused/applicant approaching or influencing or
-- 2 of 4 --
threatening the complainant and injured or other public
witnesses of prosecution cannot
-3-
be ruled out. This Court is in agreement with the
submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for State that allegations
against accused/applicant are grave and no ground to
release him on bail, at this stage or proceedings, is made
out. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.”
8. Since dismissal of first bail application on 28.11.2024,
there is no change in circumstances of accused/applicant or of the
present case. On being asked, Ld. Defence counsel could not put forth
any argument as to why second bail application of accused/applicant be
considered after dismissal of first one on 28.11.2024.
Taking note of dismissal of first bail application on
28.11.2024 and there being no change of circumstances since dismissal
of first bail application, no reasonable or justified ground is made out to
allow the bail application. The second bail application of
accused/applicant Bhanu Pratap is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Nothing in the present order shall tantamount to
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of this case.
10. Before parting with the order, it is noted that present bail
application has been filed as ‘first bail application’ without any
reference to the dismissal of first bail application on 28.11.2024. As
such, technically this is the second bail application of accused.
11. Application is disposed of accordingly.
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.
(ARVIND BANSAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
-- 3 of 4 --
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi/11.02.2025
-- 4 of 4 --