EKANT BANSAL  Vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 105/2021 Page 1 of 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 105/2021

Date of decision: 15th January , 202 1
IN THE MATTER OF:
EKANT BANSAL ….. Petitioner
Through Ms. Manika Pandey Tripathi,
Advocate
versus

STATE GNCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C. ’) seeking regular
bail in FIR No.580/2014 dated 13.11. 2014 , registered in Police Station
Paharganj for offences under Section 302 IPC.
2. Heard Ms. Manika Pandey Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Ms. Kusum Dhalla, lear ned APP appearing for the State
on 12.01.2021 and the order was reserved.
3. Ms. Manika Pandey Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contends that the petitioner was arre sted by the police on
2021:DHC:169
BAIL APPLN. 105/2021 Page 2 of 4
15.01.2015 , and is in custody for about six years. She states that the co –
accused has been granted bail by the trial court . It is further stated that there
are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses
and in all likelihood the trial would result in the acquittal of the petitioner.
On the other hand, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP appearing for the State
contends that the application for bail which was filed by the petitioner
before the learned Additional Se ssions Judge , Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
was rejected on 20.10.2020. She further states that the petitioner is accused
of a very heinous crime namely that of murder, and therefore is not entitled
for grant of bail.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner had been g ranted an interim bail for a
period of one month by an order dated 08.09.2017. The applicant did not
surrender on the expiry of the interim bail and he was declared a proclaimed
offender vide an order dated 12.04.2018. The petitioner was later arrested in
another case .
5. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegation against the petitioner is
that he alongwith two other persons assaulted the deceased which resulted in
his death. This court is not inclined to enter into the question as to whether
there are co ntradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses or not
2021:DHC:169
BAIL APPLN. 105/2021 Page 3 of 4
at that stage .
6. The Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali , reported
as (2019) 5 SCC 1 , has restated the settled legal position about the factors to
be kept in mind for deciding an application of bail and has observed as
under :
21. Before we proceed to analyse the rival submissions,
it is apposite to restate the settled legal position about
matters to be considered for deciding an application
for bail, to wit:
i. whether there is a ny prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence;
ii. nature and gravity of the charge;
iii. severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
v. character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated;
vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with; and
viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail. ( State of U.P. v. Amarmani
Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi ,
(2005) 8 SCC 21, para 18 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960
(2)] .)

7. The petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 302 IPC . If
convict ed for the offence under Section 302 IPC the petitioner will be
2021:DHC:169
BAIL APPLN. 105/2021 Page 4 of 4
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and can even be awarded death
penalty . The petitioner has already abused the bail granted to him and
therefore there is a danger of the accused to abscond if released on bail. The
petitioner was arrested in another offence whi le on bail which indicates that
there is a danger of his committing other offence s if he is released on bail .
8. Keeping all these factors in mind this court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner’s bail application is
dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

JANUARY 15, 202 1
rs
2021:DHC:169