Interim Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 350/2024
IA No. 6/2025
State Vs. Pankaj & Ors.
FIR No. 233/2024
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 304/308/34 IPC
27.02.2025
This is 3rd application u/s 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused Ankit.
Present:- Sh. Ghanshyam, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the
State.
Sh. R K Kochar and Sh. Vishal, Ld. Counsels for
applicant/accused Ankit.
ORDER
1. It is argued by Ld. counsel for applicant/accused that
he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in JC
since 12.06.2024. The present FIR was registered on 24.04.2024
on the basis of GD No. 28A dt. 23.04.2024 and the incident took
place on 20.04.2024 to 21.04.2024, however, the FIR has been
registered on 24.04.2024 after an unexplained delay of three
days. It is further submitted that there is no ill will or enmity with
the deceased prior to the alleged incident and during incident,
verbal hot exchange was going on with Pankaj and Himanshu
and the deceased intervened in the matter and during that
process, the deceased allegedly received fist and leg blows.
Applicant/accused had not caused any leg and fist blows to the
deceased on his abdomen and on 20.04.2024, the deceased was in
his house after receipt of alleged injuries. Deceased has expired
due to septic infection in his body and he and his family
members had not provided proper and adequate treatment to the
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
deceased in reputed hospital and lapses have been made on the
part of family of deceased. The charge has already been framed
against the applicant/accused and thereafter, prosecution has
examined two alleged eye-witnesses of the incident i.e. PW1
Parag and PW2 Himanshu on 11.02.2025 and they not levelled
any allegations against applicant/accused and did not support the
case of prosecution, even after cross-examination by Ld. Addl.
PP. Applicant/accused was not present at the spot at the time of
incident nor he had participated in alleged crime in any manner.
Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession or
at his instance. Brother of deceased namely Abhishek in his
statement stated the names of other co-accused as told by
deceased to him, but name of applicant/accused was not taken by
him.
2. It is submitted that 1st and 2nd bail applications were
dismissed vide order dt. 23.07.2024 and 23.09.2024 and other
bail application had been moved before the Hon’ble High Court,
which was dismissed as withdrawn. His custodial interrogation is
not required and he is not previous convict nor involved in any
other case. Complainant has levelled the false and frivolous
allegations against applicant/accused being employee in the
grocery shop. No similar application of the application is pending
in any court. No purpose would be served by keeping the accused
behind the bars and trial will take considerable time.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has opposed the bail
application on the ground of gravity of offence and that
applicant/accused has played an active role in the crime and if
released on bail, he may influence the remaining eye-witnesses
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
and death of deceased was caused due to the injuries, caused by
beatings by the accused.
4. IO has filed a reply and opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the rival contentions of the bail
application and perused the record.
6. As per the case of prosecution, on 23.04.2024, a
PCR call vide DD No. 28A was received that injured Harsh was
admitted in GTB Hospital after the quarrel. On 24.04.2024, the
patient was on ventilator at the said hospital and he was declared
unfit by the doctor and IO recorded the statement of brother of
deceased namely Abhishek, who alleged that injured Harsh was
his brother, who told him that on 20.04.2024, he had gone in the
marriage of his known at Jail Road, Harsh Vihar, Delhi and when
he returned on 21.04.2024, he told that 3-4 persons namely
Rocky, Pankaj and Bittu, who were residents of Saboli, had
beaten him mercilessly and the complainant had not made any
police complaint as there were no visible injuries, but conditions
of Harsh was deteriorating with time as he had suffered internal
injuries due to which, he was admitted to GTB Hospital on
22.04.2024 and the doctor declared him unfit.
7. The FIR was registered u/s 308 IPC at PS Harsh
Vihar and later on, when he died during the investigation, charge-
sheet was filed u/s 304/34 IPC. Only one co-accused Pankaj has
already been granted bail, but he was not granted bail on merits
rather a default bail, so applicant/accused cannot claim parity
with him.
8. The reason for delay in FIR is explained that since
there were no visible injury, immediately the FIR was not lodged,
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
but it was lodged after the deceased suffered some discomfort/
pain in abdomen due to internal injuries caused by the accused
persons and applicant/accused is not named in the statement
given by complainant Abhishek on 28.04.2024. Ld. Counsel has
highlighted that there is no date and time in the MLC of deceased
Harsh at GTB Hospital wherein he was declared fit. IO must
have recorded the statement of injured, if he was fit, but IO
submits that it was the late MLC, so doctor would have failed to
record the date and time, but it is mentioned in the MLC that
there was alleged history of physical assault on injured Harsh on
20.04.2024 at about 12:00 am near Harsh Vihar, Delhi and there
was pain in abdomen for two days and FIR was registered on
24.04.2024, from which it can be implied that MLC was done on
22.04.2024. In the FIR also, applicant/accused is not named
while other accused persons Rocky, Pankaj and Bittu are
specifically named and brother of deceased namely Abhishek in
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC dt. 23.08.2024, has not named the
applicant/accused and in his subsequent statement dt. 28.04.2024,
he has not named the applicant/accused. There are no visible
injuries as per PMR in which only two abrasions and one bruise
are mentioned, which shows that there was no intention to cause
death of deceased. IO in his reply stated that in the video clip of
deceased Harsh produced by his brother Abhishek, he had named
Pankaj, Rocky and Bittu and not the applicant/accused. IO
submits that location of applicant/accused was at the spot, but it
is matter of trial.
9. During treatment, deceased had expired on
28.04.2024 and as per PMR, cause of death is “septic shock as a
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
result of peritonitis due to traumatic perforation of duodenum
consequent upon blunt force trauma to the abdomen”. There were
3 ante mortem injuries in the form of abrasions and bruise and
there was also extravasation of blood in the scalp corresponding
to injury and brain was congested and there was perforation of
2x2 cm in the duodenum in the intestines, which shows the
internal injury caused to the deceased.
10. Charge framed against accused is u/s 304/34 IPC.
Two eye-witnesses namely Parag and Himanshu have already
been examined and discharged and they have not supported the
case of prosecution at all. Brother of deceased is not eye-witness.
There is no previous involvement of the applicant/accused. One
of the main accused person namely Pankaj Gautam has already
been granted default bail by Ld. JMFC vide order dt. 29.08.2024.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, the 3rd bail application of applicant/accused Ankit is
allowed and he is admitted to regular bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court, subject to following
conditions:-
1. That accused will not contact complainant and his
family members or any prosecution witness directly
or indirectly in any manner.
2. The accused will appear before the court regularly
during trial and shall not seek frequent
adjournments.
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
3. In case of change of residential address or contact
details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same
to the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO as well
as to the concerned Court.
4. The accused shall not leave the country without the
permission of the court.
12. Nothing mentioned herein shall tantamount to any
expression on the merits of the case.
13. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
14. Copy of this order be sent to Jail superintendent
concerned, IO/SHO concerned and be given dasti to Ld. counsel
for accused.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
27.02.2025
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --