9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has given very cogent reasons why bail should not have been granted and why this unjustified erroneous order granting bail should be cancelled. In the instant case, the Trial Court had found the respondent and others, prima facie, guilty for committing murder but, strange enough opted to grant bail to the respondent relying upon CCTV footage - This Court is conscious that cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only when there exist very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It is settled law that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. However, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials, bail can be cancelled. The bail can be cancelled even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. Since the Trial Court, prima facie, found the respondent and others to have committed the offence under Section 302/308 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, grant of bail to the respondent merely because of certain discrepancies, cannot be justified. The petition is allowed and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the boys with whom an altercation had taken place in the club, threatened to teach them lesson as they were the individuals who had misbehaved in the club. Thereafter, all the 7/8 assailants started beating them. Out of them, one brought a rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh. When he intervened to save Rupesh, they also made him to fall on the road. One of the assailants lifted a cemented brick and hit him on his head. They all ran towards different directions to save themselves leaving Santro at the spot. He further informed that when he returned to take back his car, he saw Rupesh lying at the spot unconscious; he had sustained various injuries on the body. He and his friend Sunil put Rupesh in Santro and took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre. The complainant gave description of the assailants in the complaint. A case under Section 307/308/34 IPC came to be registered. 4. During the course of investigation, statements of Sagar Sharma @ Sonu, Jitender, Vinit, Mohinder @ Monu and Sunil conversant with facts were recorded. Statement of Vinod Sharma and Jeyavelu, Managers of the club, were also recorded. CCTV footage of the camera installed at the spot was viewed; footage was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at this stage, despite the fact that these had not been noticed in the CCTV footage. The court further noted that there were categorical statements of eye witnesses and other witnesses regarding the involvement of the respondent besides other accused persons in inflicting injuries to the injured Rohit Bansal and Rupesh Tanwar (deceased). It was further noted that the statements of witnesses coupled with CCTV footage suggested that the accused persons had shared common intention formed at the spur of moment to kill Rupesh Tanwar and cause injuries to the complainant Rohit Bansal and the said fact also stood corroborated from the MLC where the complainant Rohit Bansal had suffered head injuries and as per post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on the head. The accused person s contention to frame under Section 304 IPC was declined. It is unclear if the order on charge has been challenged by the respondent or his associates. 6. By the said order, the respondent was, however, granted regular bail. The Trial Court was of the view that crux of CCTV footage was deciphered by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet and no role was assigned to the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that Mercedes car entered the lane only at 1:37:55 a.m. As per CCTV footage, relied upon by the prosecution, the Mercedes car entered the lane of incident at around 1:37:56 a.m. and stood at a distance of 20 meters away from the spot of the brawl. In the Mercedes car, the respondent was seen with a girl. However, the police did not try to identify the said girl. At around 1:39:34 a.m. the said Mercedes car driven by the respondent was seen exiting the lane of the incident. CCTV footage captured the entire assault and it is clear from the said CCTV footage that no one had used the baseball bat in committing the assault. The Mercedes car allegedly driven by the respondent was recovered at the instance of coaccused Vikas @ Shammi and the baseball bat shown to have been recovered at the respondent s instance did not have blood stains or finger prints. Similarly, clothes allegedly recovered from the respondent did not contain any blood stains. 9. Learned Senior counsel urged that the discretion has been exercised judiciously by the Trial Court and the respondent was in custody for the last about 16 months. The occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment and there was no prep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad reached the spot in the said Mercedes, the answer was in affirmation. Respondent s only contention is that the said Mercedes car was away at a distance of 20 meters from the spot and he did not reach the place of occurrence; did not participate in the quarrel and no role was played by him. Identity of the girls present in the car has not been disclosed even by the respondent who is expected to know it. All the assailants were together in the club when the scuffle had taken place over a trivial issue. The complainant and the other eye witnesses in their statements have categorically identified the respondent and others to have participated in the infliction of injuries to the petitioner and deceased Rupesh Tanwar with various weapons/objects. The respondent and the co-accused declined to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings. Certain recoveries are stated to have been effected at the instance of the respondent and others. Nothing is on record to ascertain at this stage if after the initial scuffle in the club, the respondent had left the spot or had not accompanied the coaccused. No explanation has been offered as to why the respondent had arrived at 1:37:55 a.m. in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g into the Mercedes. It is, however, not clear as to when the said individual (the respondent) had come out of the said Mercedes. The petitioner has also placed on record photographs developed from the footage recorded in the CCTV. In photographs No.1, 2 and 4, the respondent is indicated inflicting injuries to the victim along with others at 1:37:30; 1:37:31; and 1:37:31 respectively. In photograph No.3, Mercedes is seen at the spot at 1:34:49. In photo No.5 the respondent is seen entering the Mercedes at 01:38:29. It belies the respondent s contention that the Mercedes entered for the first time in the lane of the occurrence only at 1:37:56. In photos Mark A and B the respondent s car is seen at the spot at 01:30:41 and 01:31:50 too. 13. This Court is conscious that cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only when there exist very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It is settled law that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. However, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials, bail can be cancelled. The bail can be cancelled even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
