JASMEET SINGH @ GINNI vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:03rd July, 2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 3658/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7532/2024
JASMEET SINGH @ GINNI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Mr. Shalabh Bhardwaj, Mr. Nikhil Mann, Mr. Pranav Dixit & Mr. Himanshu Solanki, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State with Insp. Chetan Singh, PS Khayala, Delhi.
Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Maanish Mohan Choudhary & Md. Sabir, Advocates for Complainant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The second regular Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in the FIR No.297/2017 registered under Section 302/120B/201/34 IPC at P.S. Khayala.
2. It is submitted in the Application that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was murdered on account of non-return of the Loan amount taken by the co-accused namely Karandeep Singh Rayat. However, the Police has neither recorded the statement of any witness in this regard nor has it collected any documentary evidence. The Police is relying on CDRs of the accused/applicant and the co-accused persons in order to prove their case. However, on perusal of the CDRs it is crystal clear that the accused had not accompanied either the deceased or the co-accused persons as has been falsely projected by the I.O. The recovery of documents and purse belonging to deceased which were attributed to the applicant, stand totally demolished in the cross-examination of PW5, who has admitted that he had seen the purse and the documents belonging to the deceased brother on 21.09.2017 at P.S. Panipat, which is before the accused was arrested in this case.
3. It is further submitted that the Charge Sheet has already been filed and the learned ASJ after framing of Charge, has started recording of evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. As on date, 33 material witnesses have been recorded out of 69 witnesses. The material witnesses already stands recorded and only official witnesses remained to be examined. Some private witnesses relating to other co-accused persons to prove the seizure of case property remain and there is no chance of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
4. It is further submitted that earlier the Bail Application No.1152/2020 had been disposed of on 02.07.2020 with the directions to the Trial Court to ensure the recording of the evidence of remaining public witnesses, those who are non-official witnesses, is concluded within six months from the date of the Order. However, despite the specific directions and the period being fixed, more than three years have passed and only 14 witnesses have been examined. As such the trial is proceeding at the snails pace and there remain 36 witnesses to be examined as on date. It would take a long time for the trial to get concluded.
5. It is further submitted that that the co-accused Karandeep Singh Rayat has already been admitted to bail vide Order dated 04.07.2023. The allegations against the said accused were much more serious than the accused who also deserves to be granted bail.
6. The applicant had moved an Application for grant of bail before the learned ASJ since he had already spent over three years and nine months behind the jail, but his Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been dismissed by the Court.
7. The applicant has further submitted that a supplementary Charge Sheet has been filed by the Police, wherein suddenly CCTV footage has been filed, but the same is related to co-accused Karandeep Singh Rayat and has nothing incriminating against the applicant.
8. The applicant had been granted interim bail from 25.10.2019 to 07.12.2019, from 01.09.2020 to 19.03.2021 and 23.05.2021 to 08.04.2023 as per the High Power Committee Guidelines. After the expiry of his Interim Bail, he surrendered before the Jail Authorities well within time and that he never misused the liberty so granted by the Court.
9. The bail is thus, sought on the ground that he has been in custody for more than 3 years 9 months. He is neither a previous convict nor has he been charged in any other case and that the court vide Order dated 02.07.2020 had directed the material witnesses to be recorded within six months, but the prosecution is proceedings at the snails pace.
10. The applicant has further submitted that he has aged parents and his father is totally bed ridden because of paralysis attack and is finding it extremely difficult to make both the ends meet. He is the sole bread earner for the entire family.
11. Furthermore, gravity of offence is not the sole factor while deciding the bail, other circumstances including the conduct of the applicant are the other relevant factors which deserves consideration. It is, therefore, submitted that on account of the grounds as stated above, he may be granted bail.
12. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant/accused in support of his assertions has relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Bail Application No.4027/2023 in case Sonu@ Sam vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed by this Court on 22.03.2024, Cr.M.P(M) No.335/2024 in case Ramesh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 06.03.2024, SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.6505/2023 in case Praveen Rathore vs. The State of Rajastan & Anr. passed by the Apex Court on 06.10.2023, SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.11714/2022 in case Mukesh Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. passed by the Apex Court on 15.02.2023, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI Crl. Appeal No.2178/2011 (SC), Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs. State of M.P 2015(2) JCC 1127 SC, Geeta vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2015(2) JCC 1476, Delhi HC., Shakti Soni vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2017(2) JCC 1394, Delhi HC, Jitender Kumar vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2016(2) JCC 1022, Delhi HC, Bail Application No. 2497/2015 in case Bajrang Gupta vs. CBI passed by this court on 26.02.2016, and Sahil Dahiya vs. State of Delhi 2015(3) JCC 1521, Delhi HC.
13. Learned Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the ground that 39 material witness have already been recorded and essentially the non-public witnesses remain to be examined. Learned Prosecutor has further argued that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The motive for commission of the offence has been established. The present accused had taken a loan of Rs.17 lakhs for which the documents i.e. cheques and pronotes have already been collected which show that the loan had been taken from the deceased i.e. brother of the complainant. Further, there are CDRs available which establish the presence of the accused at the scene of crime. There is last seen evidence which has been established from the testimony of PW2. The credibility of the witnesses cannot be considered at this stage for consideration of bail.
14. Furthermore, there is cogent evidence to establish that CCTV footage at Karampura, New Moti Nagar which spots the presence of accused No.1 as driving the vehicle of the deceased. The location of the accused at Azadpur, where the deceased was also present is also established through CDR records. The location of CDRs of accused No.2 also show his presence in Samalkha, Haryana.
15. The car of the deceased has been recovered from Rai, Haryana. The dead body of the deceased has been recovered from Panipat, Haryana. The murder weapon has been recovered at the instance of accused No.2 from Rai, Sonepat and the purse has been recovered at the instance of accused No.1 i.e. the applicant himself. The CCTV of ‘Chauhan Misthan Bhandar’, Haryana also spots the presence of accused No.2 and 3. The CCTV footage of Raddison Hotel, Lajpat Nagar also spots the presence of the applicant as well as the accused number 2.
16. It is further argued that there is overwhelming evidence against the accused persons establishing their involvement in the commission of offence. At this stage of granting bail, the severity of the offence and the prima facie evidence against the witnesses is of relevance. It is further submitted that the bail granted to the accused Karandeep Singh Rayat is under challenge. It is thus argued that the evidence by way of CCTV records has been traced subsequently, for which supplementary Charge Sheet has been filed. This piece of evidence was not available at the time when the bail was granted to the co-accused. The bail application is, therefore, opposed.
17. The learned counsel for the complainant, who has also opposed the Bail, has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his assertions:
(i) Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, on para 19 of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, on para 35 & 39 of Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870, and para 28 & 35 of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497, for considerations to be taken account of while hearing bail application of an accused in a serious offence.
(ii) Rajesh Ranjan Yadav vs. CBI, 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1229, on para 3,7,&8 of Naveen Khatri vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5920, on para 5,10, & 11 of Dinesh vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6552, on para 7,8,&9 of Vikas @ Vicky vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015, SCC OnLine Del 12167, and on para 13&14 of Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 546, to argue that mere long period of incarceration does not entitle accused to be enlarged on bail, in view of seriousness of offence.
(iii) Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, on para 10 of Salim vs. State of U.P., 2002 SCC OnLine ALL 1740, on para 16 of Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. State (GNCT Of Delhi), 2016 SCCC OnLine Del 4919, on para 15 of Harbhajan Singh vs. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4920, Suresh Gupta vs. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4760, and Nanha vs. State of U.P., 1992 SCC OnLine ALL 871, to argue that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail and new developments have to be taken into consideration.
18. Submissions heard.
19. The accused is facing the charges of having committed murder. It is a case which essentially rests on circumstantial evidence. At this stage, it may not be appropriate to sift through the evidence which has already come on record as it is a matter of trial to be considered at the stage of final arguments. The accused may have been incarcerated in jail for about four years, but at the same time considering the gravity of the offence which is of murder and also that many prosecution witnesses have already been examined and trial is likely to be concluded soon, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant bail to the accused.
20. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 03, 2024
va
BAIL APPLN. 3658/2023 Page 7 of 7