9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y out the conspiracy. 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 - In respect of the antecedents of the petitioner, to be noted that the petitioner has been accused of committing an offence under Sections 482/411/34 IPC registered under at Police Station Saket, suffice it to note that the same pertains to the year 2013 and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been recently involved in any other offence. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the fact that multiple criminal charges are still pending against the accused by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail. Conclusion - This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail pending trial. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to fulfilm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deceased was an Assistant Law Officer/Estate Officer with the New Delhi Municipal Corporation and the recovery suit of license fee in respect of petitioner's Hotel namely, 'The Connaught' was pending in the office of the deceased. It also came to light that the petitioner tried to win over the deceased by offering him hefty bribe running into crores, but the same was refused by the deceased and he had decided to proceed against the petitioner as per law. 6. It is thus, the case of the prosecution that the matter between co-accused namely, Ramesh Kakkar and the NDMC was listed on 17.05.2016 for the parties to file written arguments and seeing no other option left, Ramesh Kakkar entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and for this purpose he took the help of hired killers, which was provided by the co-accused Ram Phool, PSO of Ramesh Kakkar. Ram Phool (PSO) in turn gave the contract to his colleague Israil (petitioner herein), who further passed this contract to Saleem and Aamir. Aamir then arranged the meeting of Anwar Omaish and Bilal with the petitioner. Anwar Omaish shot the deceased on 16.05.2016, while he was riding the pillion and Bilal wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish and prove the fact that Anwar was the shooter/assailant in the present case as there is no eyewitness to the effect that offence in question was executed by Anwar, all the more, when the weapon of offence has not been recovered from him. 12. Referring to the location chart of the petitioner, it is submitted that the same does not show any meeting had happened between the petitioner and the main accused of the case or with any of the assailants/shooter of the case. It is the submission of Mr Singhal that the incriminating circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution is that the location of co-accused Ramphool and the petitioner was the same i.e. AIIMS Delhi on the date of incident, however, it is submitted that the same cannot be sustained for the reason that the place of incident is Jamia Nagar which is about 10-11 kms away from AIIMS, Delhi and it is the case of the prosecution itself that Ramphool and Israil were known to each other since many years, therefore, their one single meeting that too far away from the place of incident cannot be considered as incriminating evidence. 13. He further submits that the main accused in the matter, namely, Ramesh Kakkar has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed in Bail Application 1433/2023. The order granting bail to Ramesh Kakkar was challenged by the next of kin before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nishat Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (CRL) Diary No. 1779/2024 which was not interfered by the Apex Court. The order of the Supreme Court dated 22.01.2024 reads thus: "Though we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, we make it clear that the observations made thereunder are prima facie in nature and, therefore, shall not have any bearing on the trial. We find force in the alternative submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the trial is pending for more than 6 years on the file of Ld. ASJ (FTC), Saket Courts, New Delhi bearing SC No. 2783/2016 titled, 'State vs. Ramesh Kakkar &Ors.'. The same is directed to be disposed of within a period of one year from today. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 23. From the above, it is apparent that the order granting regular bail to the Ramesh Kakkar, who is alleged to be the mastermind of the conspiracy, has attained finality, whereas, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Saket, suffice it to note that the same pertains to the year 2013 and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been recently involved in any other offence. 28. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020:INSC:89 : (2020) 11 SCC 648 has held that the fact that multiple criminal charges are still pending against the accused by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "73. ....The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order [Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566] of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed." (Emphasis Supplied) 29. Considering the above discussed circumstances in entirety, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
