9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lia, who proceeded to the spot. On reaching the spot i.e. Noor Nagar Extn. Johri Farm, SI Pankaj Gulia noticed pieces of glasses on the road and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to Holy Family Hospital. 4. On reaching the hospital, SI found injured Mohd. Moin Khan S/o Mohd Naaem Khan aged about 58 years was admitted vide MLC No. C16/015226. The doctor mentioned alleged history as "while he was parking his car today at around 7:40 P.M. h/o sustained 2 suspected gunshot injury to (R) upper Anterior Chest and he became unconscious immediately first attended by his wife Nishant (all history given by his wife and daughter)". On examination "Unconscious L/E (R) upper Anv near II Inter coastal space just lateral to mild caluicle line wound 1X1 cm nearly triangle shape irregular margins inverted wound." Thereafter, the SI tried to trace the eyewitnesses of the incident but in vain. In the meantime, at about 09:10 P.M. the doctor declared the patient as "dead". It is in this backdrop, that the present FIR came to be registered. 5. During investigation, the petitioner and other co-accused namely, Ramesh Kakkar, Ram Phool, Saleem, Amir and Anwar Omaish were arrested on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-accused. In so far as the CDR's are concerned, it is submitted that CDR's of the petitioner cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of corroboration. 10. Drawing the attention of the Court to the CDR's of the petitioner, he submits that there are no telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the main accused in the matter, namely, Ramesh Kakkar. In so far as the telephonic conversations between the petitioner and co-accused namely, Ram Phool and Salim are concerned, the same cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against the petitioner as it is the prosecution's own case that Ram Phool and the petitioner were colleagues of one another. Whereas, Salim and the petitioner are cousins and conversations between cousins (Tau's son) cannot be taken to be an incriminating circumstance. Further, there are no telephonic conversations between the petitioner and Bilal, from whom the weapon of offence, i.e. Pistol has been recovered. 11. It is fairly conceded by Mr. Singhal that the only incriminating circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in its whole case is few calls between Israil and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted to him and he has always surrendered on time. 17. It is in this backdrop, it is urged by Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be enlarged on regular bail. 18. Per Contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as assisted by the counsel for the victims has argued on the lines of the Status Report. He submits that the petitioner has been accused of a grave and serious offence, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 19. He submits that as per FSL report No. FSL 2016/F-5137 dt. 20.04.2017, the bullet (projectile) recovered from the body of the deceased was fired from the pistol which was recovered at the instance of co-accused Bilal. 20. He further submits that the CDRs. and tower location of the mobile numbers of all the accused persons was analyzed, which establishes their involvement. The attention of the Court was also drawn to the previous involvement of the petitioner vide FIR No. 218/2013, under Sections 482/411/34 IPC, P.S. Saket. 21. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned APP and have also perused the record. 22. At the outset, it may be noticed that Ramesh Kakkar, who is stated to be the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in State (By NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta 2022:INSC:26 : (2022) 12 SCC 633, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:- "12. ...The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage trial." 25. The aforesaid factors coupled with the long incarceration of more than five and a half years (as per nominal roll dated 02.08.2023, the custody period is 5 years 1 month and 27 days) furnishes the reason for grant of bail to the petitioner. Even otherwise at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. 26. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has been enlarged on interim bail number of times and the said concession has not been misused by the petitioner. Further, all public witnesses have already been examined and only official witnesses are left to be examined. Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the public witnesses in the event he is enlarged on bail. 27. In respect of the antecedents of the petitioner, to be noted that the petitioner has been accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
