TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined the file. Undisputedly, 'the respondent' is facing trial in case FIR No.1187/2015 registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC. 3. Briefly stated the facts as projected in the charge-sheet are that on 22.10.15 on receipt of DD No.10A regarding admission of injured Rupesh Tanwar and Rohit Bansal at Trauma Centre, AIIMS, ASI Dalbir Singh went there and lodged First Information Report after recording petitioner's statement. The petitioner informed that on 21.10.2015, he along with his friends Vinit, Sonu, Rupesh (since deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club in two cars i.e. Santro and Honda Civic at 12.00-12.15 (night). During dance on the floor of the club, the petitioner's hand stuck with an individual to whom he said 'sorry'. The said individual abused and boosted him if he did not know him. The matter was pacified by the bouncers. Thereafter, they came out of the club and reached IIT Gate in cars. The petitioner further disclosed that he found his mobile to have fallen during quarrel. He along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu went back in Santro car to the club. When they reached near the club at some distance before it, he found that a Mercedes and EON car ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not. The court at this stage is not meant to meticulously weigh the evidence. Even a strong suspicion founded upon the material is sufficient for framing of charge, it is not open to the court at this stage, to evaluate the material to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is sufficient if the material on the record supports a triable issue. Court is not expected to go into the probative value on record, nor required to discuss every material placed before it by the police along with the charge-sheet. It was further observed that there were specific roles assigned to the assailants. Various discrepancies in the prosecution case pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons regarding the non-disclosure of name of the accused in the FIR recorded after 10 hours of the incident; the non-placement of the CCTV footage of the CCTV installed inside the club to show who was the aggressor to the said scuffle in the club and to show whether infact any mobile phone of injured Rohit Bansal had fallen during that scuffle or not; the CCTV did not also corroborate the statement of the witnesses that the cars of the accused persons were blocking the road and it also did not suggest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was wearing at the time of crime have been seized and the FSL report is awaited. CCTV footage installed at the place of occurrence, records presence and active participation of all the accused persons including 'the respondent' in the incident. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the specific allegations, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the gravity of the offence. The Trial Court granted regular bail to 'the respondent' in haste and discretion was not exercised in judicial manner. The complainant was not given an opportunity to assist the court on the factual matrix of the case. 8. Learned Senior counsel for 'the respondent' urged that as per CCTV footage, 'the respondent's presence was not found at the spot. The complainant Rohit Bansal in his initial statement dated 22.10.2015 did not name 'the respondent' to be one of the assailants; he did not mention if any baseball bat was used in inflicting injuries to him or the deceased. Subsequently, in his supplementary statement recorded on 1.11.2015, the complainant made vital improvements and attributed a definite role to A-4 to have inflicted injuries with baseball bat. He further urged that as per CDR re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mercedes, EON car had blocked the road and a Bolero Car was parked on the side of the road. He took the victim to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Presence of the Complainant Rohit Bansal at the spot can't be suspected or doubted, he being injured himself. 11. Soon after the lodging of the FIR, statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Sagar Sharma @ Sonu corroborated the complainant's version and stated that on return to the club to take back Rohit Bansal's mobile, they saw that an EON car and Mercedes Car had blocked their way. When they asked for removal of the car, the occupants started quarreling with them. One of them had a baseball bat and the other was carrying an iron-rod. They were calling each other with the name of 'Maddy', 'Ashish', 'Vishal', 'Shammi', 'Vikas' and 'Anil Bhai'. Specific role was assigned to each of the assailants. Similarly Vineet, Jitender, Mohinder @ Monu and Sunil have supported his version. After considering arguments from the both sides, charges under Sections 302/308/34 IPC were framed against 'the respondent' and the others. Undisputedly, Mercedes car was seen at the spot at the time of occurrence in CCTV footage. Specific q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undertaken. What the Additional Sessions Judge had done, in the order dated 11.9.2000, was to discuss the merits and demerits of the evidence. That was what was deprecated. It was further observed that the High Court has correctly not gone into the merits and demerits of the matter. The High Court has noted that evidence prima facie indicated demand of dowry. The High Court has briefly indicated the evidence on record 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. I have examined/viewd the CCTV footage/CD provided by the learned counsel for 'the respondent' in the computer in chamber. Seemingly, the footage recorded in the CCTV did not cover the entire place of occurrence. It was a revolving camera moving horizontally and vertically. Possibly, it could not capture the whole incident from all angles at the same time. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial and evidence on record and that too without giving any reasons, bail can be cancelled. Such an order would be against the principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected. 15. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 775, the Supreme Court held that the object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused from tempering with the evidence in the heinous crime. When the basic requirements necessary for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court, the Apex Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. In the said case, the accused' custody for more than two years was not considered to be tenable ground to grant bail. Sixteen months incarceration, in the present, case was also not a valid consideration to grant bail to 'the respondent' considering the gravity of the offence....