PAHALWAN @ SUBEY  Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 1 of 6
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 14.01.2021

+ BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020
PAHALWAN @ SUBEY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr.S.P.Kaushal, Advocate

Versus

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Naresh Kumar

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video confe rencing.
1. By this petition, petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 200/2015, under
Sections 302/307/395/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act,
registered at police station Baba Haridas Nagar, De lhi.
2. The facts of the case are that on receipt of inform ation through
wireless that gun shots were fired, Inspector Sheel want Singh along with
constable Hari Om reached at the spot i.e. Abhinand an Vatika, where
Sandeep, a Constable posted at Mundka Police Statio n, informed that on
2021:DHC:151 BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 2 of 6
29.03.2015, during Kuan Poojan ceremony of his son, around 200 guests,
including Mr.Bharat Singh, Ex MLA were present. Co nstable Sandeep next
stated that at around 07:30 p.m., sound of gun shot s was heard, which
resulted into stampede amongst the guests. He furth er stated that in the
meanwhile, he was also hit by some unknown object a nd received injury on
the left side of his forehead and nose and was take n to Swastik Hospital for
treatment. Constable Sandeep stated that upon his r eturn from the hospital,
he came to know that some unknown persons had fired on Mr.Bharat Singh,
Ex MLA. In the said incident, except Constable Sand eep, six other guests
had sustained gunshot injuries. Resultantly, on the complaint of Constable
Sandeep, FIR in question was registered against unk nown accused persons.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed this
petition by stating that the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged
incident is that under an active criminal conspirac y, petitioner along with
other co-accused persons, with a view to eliminate Mr.Bharat Singh, Ex
MLA, committed murderous assault on him and Mr.Bhar at Singh, Ex MLA
succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained by him due to gunshot and six
others also received injuries due to gunshot and st ampede. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for State further subm its that petitioner was
2021:DHC:151 BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 3 of 6
one of the shooter in the alleged incident and one pistol has been recovered
at his instance. Learned Additional Public Prosecut or for State next submits
that the Scorpio vehicle used in the alleged incide nt has been recovered by
the police, which is said to be registered in the n ame of one Amit and the
said recovered Scorpio was inspected by the FSL exp ert and crime team and
exhibits i.e. blood stains, one nokia mobile phone used by the petitioner, one
live cartridge, one empty cartridge were recovered from it.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State subm its that the DVR
of the video camera and memory card of still camera used for video
graphing the kuan ceremony function was seized, wherein it is recorded that
within three minutes of arrival of Mr.Bharat Singh, Ex MLA along with
PSO HC Ram Jivan and his private security officer i n Abhinandan Vatika,
accused Nitin Sherawat while talking on mobile phon e, with another
accused Mohit @ Chand, had entered the crime scene. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for State informs that during inv estigation it was revealed
that accused Udaibir @ Kala along with other accuse d persons, with the
motive to take revenge of death of his father – Surajmal , had conspired to
kill Mr.Bharat Singh, Ex MLA in the year 2002 as we ll, but had failed and
in this regard, FIR No. 123/2012, under Sections 30 7/120B/34 IPC and
2021:DHC:151 BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 4 of 6
Section 25 Arms Act, was registered at police stati on Baba Haridas Nagar.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State subm its that accused Udaibir
@ Kala had died on 15.11.2016 due to cardiac arrest .
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State next submits that
accused Nitin Sehrawat in his disclosure statement has stated that he and
accused Hemant studied in the same school and since accused Hemant
wanted to take revenge of death of his fufa –Rajesh Dahiya at the hands of
Bharat Singh, Ex MLA along with his associate on 29 .03.2015, on his
asking he had accompanied him in the alleged incide nt. The accused
Hemant has committed murder of one witness- Vipin and in this regard, FIR
No. 1558/2015, under Section 302/34 IPC and Section s 25/27 Arms Act,
was registered at police station Prashant Vihar, De lhi.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State subm its that charge
sheet in this case has been filed and trial is in p rogress and if at this stage
petitioner is released on bail, he may influence th e witnesses and flee from
judicial process.
7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. He further submits that pe titioner is in judicial
2021:DHC:151 BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 5 of 6
custody since 05.04.2015 and prosecution has arraye d 137 witnesses, out of
which only two witnesses have been examined so far. Learned senior
counsel further submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is far less
than the role of co-accused Nitin Sehrawat, who has been granted bail by
this Court on 18.09.2019 in Bail Appln. 1796/2019 and, therefore,
petitioner deserves to be released on bail on parit y.
8. I have heard learned senior counsel appearing on be half of the
petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Pro secutor appearing for
State. Petitioner was the driver of accused Udaibir, who has expired during
trial of the case. It is not in dispute that co-ac cused Nitin Sehrawat has
already been granted bail by this Court. Besides, t wo other accused Raman
Gurung and Ajay have also been granted bail. It is also not in di spute that a
weapon was recovered from an open place after about 08 days of the alleged
incident.
9. I am conscious of the fact that the petitioner had earlier also filed
similar application for bail, which was dismissed a s withdrawn on
20.11.2019 and thereafter, petitioner’s bail appli cation was dismissed by the
learned trial court on 15.10.2020. It is a matter o f record that when
petitioner’s bail application was dismissed as with drawn before this Court
2021:DHC:151 BAIL APPLN. 3332/2020 Page 6 of 6
on 20.11.2019, by then only two witnesses had been examined on
18.01.2018 and 19.07.2018. Thereafter, not even a s ingle witness has been
examined by the prosecution out of 137 witnesses.
10. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and that petitioner has
been languishing in jail since 2015 and also that t rial in this case will take
substantial time, I am of the opinion that petition er deserves bail.
Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned tria l court.
11. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influen ce any witness or
tamper with the evidence.
12. The trial court shall not get influenced by any obs ervation made by
this Court while passing this order.
13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
14. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Sup erintendent
concerned and trial court for information and neces sary compliance.
15. The order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2021/ r
2021:DHC:151