Bail Appln. 1631/2010 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1631/2010 Date of Decision : 04.05.2011 SACHCHU @ SACHIN …… Petitioner Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mr. Gurpreet Gulati, Advs. Versus STATE ….Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? V.K. SHALI, J. (oral) 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP on the question of grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in respect of FIR No. 83/2008 under Section 302/34 IPC. I have also gone through the record. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the testimony of PW3 Ranvir Singh, father of the deceased does not inspire confidence inasmuch as he states in his cross-examination that he had reached at his house at 10.00 PM, while as the incident is purported to have occurred around 9.00 PM when he is supposed to have seen the deceased in the company of the present petitioner. Therefore, Bail Appln. 1631/2010 Page 2 of 2 it is stated that this raises a doubt regarding the credibility of his testimony. 3. I feel that the learned counsel for the petitioner is dissecting the testimony of PW3 Ranvir Singh minutely for the purpose of grant of bail which cannot be permitted to be done. PW-3’s testimony if read in full shows that before going to the market to get the vegetables, he had come to home where he had seen his deceased son in the company of the present petitioner. In addition to this, the petitioner admittedly owed some money to the deceased which gives rise to the motive for commission of offence. I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case. 4. Dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 04, 2011 ‘ga’