Blog

BAIL APPLN. 3359/2022

VIKAS PANDEY v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Current bail application was filed under Section 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.) Cr.P.C. in the case FIR No.151/2021 of 05.04.2021 under Sections307 (Attempt to murder) IPC, 1860 and 25 (Punishment for certain offences.) /27 (Punishment for using arms, etc.) Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Alipur. Matter before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was in custody since 05.04.2021. As mentioned earlier the chargesheet had been filed under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the other remaining co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without going into the merits of the case and taking into consideration the length of detention of the present petitioner, he may be granted bail.

The Learned Addl. P.P. for the State opposed the bail application. The Learned Addl. P.P stated that as per his instructions, it was the petitioner who fired the gunshot on the injured and also directed the other co-accused to assault the complainant. Thus, contended that the petitioner may not be admitted to the bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. for the State also contended that, the petitioner was the main perpetrator of the crime. The injured had currently been discharged from the hospital.

JUDGEMENT

The Court stated that the basic rule of criminal justice system was bail and not jail. Further it was mentioned that the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty. The Court also took notice that the other co-accused have already been given bail.

The petitioner was admitted to regular bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions as follows:

• The petitioner should not directly or indirectly contact the injured person and his family members in any way.
• The petitioner should not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• The petitioner was required to provide his/her mobile number(s) to the Police Officer In Charge of the case and keep it operational at all times.
• In case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner will have to intimate the change to the Police Officer In Charge of the case / Court concerned, by way of an affidavit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.

Click here to view your judgement