MOHD KHALID @ ALTAF vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 12.09.2023
% Pronounced on : 16.10.2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 65/2020
MOHD. KHALID @ ALTAF ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Ujwal Ghai, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Udit Bakshi, Mr. Teeksh Singhal and Mr. Anmol Chopra, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI …. Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
with Insp. Rajesh Malik, B.P. Bindapur and SI Dharmaveer, P.S. Chhawla.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 130/2012 U/s 302/120-B/201/34 IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 13.06.2012, DD No. 16 A was received at P.S. Chhawla with regard to the fact that some foul smell was coming from a locked house. SI Hari Singh alongwith Ct. Ramesh reached at the spot i.e. House No. B-12, Shyam Vihar, Phase-I, Najafgarh, Delhi. The lock of the house was broken and the dead body of an aged person was found. The hands, legs and head were severed and the dead body was in highly decomposed state. Weapon of offence was also lying at the spot. The identity of the deceased was revealed as one Sanjay Kumar Rohilla who was missing alongwith his car bearing No. DL-4CAD-7920 since 06.06.2012 and a missing report in this regard was registered vide DD No. 10 A dated 08.06.2012.
3. The above said car was found unclaimed at Tejpur Goyal Khurd Road on 07.06.2012 and a mobile phone make LG without SIM was also found lying in the said car. The statement of the son of the deceased was recorded who stated that the deceased was running his office with his partner namely Radha. On 19.06.2012, petitioner and his wife were arrested who confessed to their involvement in the present case with the help of co-accused Jeetu and Dinesh.
4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, perused the Status Report and also perused the records of this case.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and she has identified co-accused Radha and had stated that she has not met the husband of co-accused Radha who is the petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecution has examined PW-4 Smt. Darshna who is the land lady of the house in which the petitioner and co-accused were residing as tenants and the said witness has failed to identify the petitioner as the person who had taken her house on rent.
6. It is further submitted that PW-6 Shri Bhagwan who is the friend of the deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has not identified the petitioner. It is further submitted that PW-15 has also not uttered a single word about the petitioner and has only talked about the co-accused Radha and deceased. It is further submitted that PW-18 is of no significance in terms of testimony of PW-4 as PW-18 in his cross examination could not answer the material details.
7. It is further submitted that co-accused Radha has been granted regular bail vide order dated 16.01.2018. It is further submitted that recovery of one Chunni belonging to accused Radha has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner but the postmortem report nowhere connects the chunni with the crime. It is further submitted that all the material witnesses have been examined and there are material discrepancies and improvements in their testimonies. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in J.C. since 19.06.2012 and the trial will take a considerable to conclude. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Babu Singh Vs. State of UP, State of Kerala Vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, Akil @ Javed Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representing Under trial Prisoners Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 731.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Radha as the order dated 16.01.2018 by virtue of which she was granted bail reveals that she has been admitted to bail solely on the ground that she is a lady and has 5 year old daughter. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner had the motive to kill Sanjay Kumar Rohilla as he doubted the illegal relationship between deceased Sanjay Kumar Rohilla and co-accused Radha. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the Chunni which was used to strangulate the deceased before cutting his neck was also recovered from the bag of the petitioner and shuttering wire and plastic rope which was used for tying the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
9. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the pointing out memo in regard to the place of occurrence and the place where the car of the deceased was abandoned were also prepared at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that at the instance of the petitioner key chain of the car of the deceased was also recovered from the bushes which was covered with soil. It is further submitted that the call details of co-accused Radha, petitioner and the deceased reveals that all the three were present at the same place.
10. In the present case, no doubt, all the material public witnesses have been examined and as far as the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there are in-consistencies in their testimonies, so, they are not trustworthy and the benefit of the said in-consistencies should be given to the petitioner, in my opinion, this is not the stage, where the testimonies of the public witnesses have to be analyze in depth so as to credit or discredit any witness as it might prejudice the case of either of the parties. Moreover, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out such glaring inconsistencies which make the testimonies of the material witnesses unbelievable or untrustworthy at the first reading.
11. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had the motive to eliminate Sanjay Kumar Rohilla as he doubted that his wife co-accused Radha has illegal relationship with him. Recoveries have also been effected at the instance of the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the judgment “supra” relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner but looking into the gravity of the offence and the evidence brought on record, at this stage, no ground for bail is made out. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed. However, since the matter is quite old, the Ld. Trial Court to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible.
12. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 16, 2023
sd

BAIL APPLN. 65/2020 Page 1 of 5