Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 350/2024
IA No. 5/2025
State Vs. Pankaj & Ors.
FIR No. 233/2024
PS Harsh Vihar
07.01.2025
This is 3rd application u/s 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused Rocky.
Present:- Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Sh. R K Kochar and Sh. Vishal, Ld. Counsels for
applicant/accused Rocky.
IO/SI Nitin Kumar in person.
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 10.06.2024. 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 as per the statement of brother of
deceased Abhishek that the injured Harsh got admitted in GTB
Hospital on 21.04.2024 and at that time, the concerned doctor
had provided medical treatment to the deceased Harsh and at that
time, the injured Harsh and his brother Abhishek did not make
any allegations against the applicant before the concerned doctor
and IO has collected the said MLC from the GTB Hospital, but
IO has not placed the same on judicial file with malafide
intention and the doctor had discharged the injured Harsh as he
was healthy and hearty.
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
2. It is further submitted that injured Harsh was again
got admitted in GTB Hospital by his brother Abhishek and as per
MLC, the patient was fit to make statement, but he did not
disclose the name of applicant or manner of the incident to the
doctor and his brother Abhishek has also not disclosed the name
of applicant/accused and the manner of incident, disclosed by
Harsh and IO had visited the hospital on 23.04.2024 and
recorded the statement of injured Harsh and he had not levelled
any allegations against any of the accused nor he disclosed the
name of assailants, so that the said statement was deliberately
and intentionally concealed by the IO/SI Devel.
3. It is further submitted that in both MLCs, the doctor
had not found any injury on the body of deceased and thus, injury
is not mentioned therein and concerned doctor did not find any
bodily injury to the deceased as per PMR, so allegations levelled
by the prosecution that applicant and other accused persons had
beaten the deceased mercilessly, is prima facie found false and
the death of deceased had happened due to septic and the parents
as well as the doctors are responsible for the death of the
deceased because they had not provided proper treatment to the
deceased.
4. There is no previous enmity or ill will to cause the
injury to the deceased in the alleged incident. There is no direct
quarrel with the deceased and the other persons and the alleged
incident had happened in spur of moment, so there is no intention
or knowledge to cause the injury to deceased by accused. The
police has not found any CCTV footage of the alleged offence.
Police has recorded the statement of the witnesses after death of
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
deceased and prior to this, the witness had not informed the
police on 100 number or by any other mode, so their veracity is
doubtful and suspicious.
5. It is further submitted that co-accused Pankaj has
already been granted bail by Ld. MM. The applicant/accused has
been granted interim bail for a period of 15 days , which was
further extended for period of 10 days, thereafter, applicant/
accused had surrendered before the Jail Authority without any
delay and during the interim period, the applicant has not
misused the liberty to grant bail to him. During interim bail, the
applicant/accused had not attempted to contact the public
witnesses of this case. He has not committed any alleged offence.
Applicant/accused has not been arrested at the instance of public
witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and IO has also failed to
fix the identity of the applicant/accused. First bail application of
applicant/accused was dismissed on 10.09.2024 and thereafter,
interim bail has been granted for a period of 25 days and 2nd bail
application was not pressed by applicant/accused and his counsel.
Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession or
at his instance. He is not previous convict nor involved in any
other case. No purpose would be served by keeping the accused
behind the bars and trial will take considerable time.
6. 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 witnesses and charges has
not been framed and material witnesses have not been examined
and death of deceased was caused after giving beating by the
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
accused.
7. IO has filed a reply and opposed the bail application.
8. I have heard the rival contentions of the bail
application and perused the record.
9. 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 make any
police complaint as there was low 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 and 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.
10. The reason for delay in FIR is explained that since
there were no visible injury, immediately the FIR was not lodged,
but it was lodged after the deceased suffered some discomfort/
pain in abdomen due to internal injuries caused by the accused
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
persons and applicant/accused is 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 named along
with co-accused and there is no apparent foul play in naming the
applicant/accused by the complainant at any stage. IO had
recorded the disclosure of applicant/accused and prepared the
pointing out memo of place of incident at his instance and
deceased was beaten mercilessly by accused and his associates,
which led to internal injuries and his name has also figured in the
statement of eye-witness Priyanshu @ Pingu, who had seen the
applicant/accused along with his associates beating the deceased.
11. During treatment, deceased had expired on
28.04.2024 and as per PMR, cause of death is “septic shock as a
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
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
internal injury caused to the deceased.
12. Charge pressed against accused is u/s 304/34 IPC,
which is grave in nature and he had deliberately caused injury to
the deceased under the influence of liquor with his associates,
which led to unfortunate death of deceased Harsh, who was aged
only about 24 years without any fault. Charges have not been
framed and material witnesses have not been examined.
13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, the 3rd regular bail application of applicant/accused
Rocky is hereby dismissed.
The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
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
07.01.2025
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --