' S A-5&6 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order: November 4, 2008 + Bail Application No. 1355/2008 % Krishan © Raja ... Petitioner Through: Mr.I.A. Khan, Advocate Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi ... Respondent Through: Mr. R.N.Vats, Addi. Public Prosecutor + Bail Application No. 1356/2008 % Vicky © Rana ... Petitioner Through: Mr.l.A. Khan, Advocate Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi ... Respondent Through: Mr. R.N.Vats, AddI. Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR, J. 1. The above captioned two petitions for bail arise out of one FIR i.e. FIR No.377/2005 under Section 302/120-13/34 of the Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Both the sides have been heard and they state that these two petitions can be disposed of by one common order. Petitioners claim parity with co-accused Karan Dayal who has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide order dated 21st August, 2007 and it is stated on behalf of these two petitioners that they are in custody since December, 2005 and the trial of this case is at initial stage and its conclusion will take a long time, therefore, they deserve bail. These two petitions are opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State by submitting that the role assigned to petitioner Krishan @ Raja is of causing injury on the vital part of the deceased i.e. on his face with a surgical blade and the role assigned to petitioner Vickey © Rana is of catching hold of the deceased by his hair and it is also submitted that now this case is fixed for evidence of public witnesses on 2 Oth November, 2008 and if the petitioners are granted bail, then they will tamper with the evidence. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot claim parity with co- ,1 Page 2 1€ accused Karan Dayal as bail has been granted to that accused by the trial court by observing that he was not armed. It is pointed out that infact co-accused Karan Dayal had given knife blow to the deceased. Since the evidence of public witnesses is to be recorded by the trial court on 20th November, 2008, it would not be prudent to release these two petitioners on bail at this crucial stage, as the apprehension of the State of the petitioners tampering with the evidence cannot be said to be far-fetched. Accordingly, bail is declined to both these petitioners, at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to apply for bail afresh before the trial court after the evidence of public witnesses is recorded. It is expected that the trial court would make all the endeavours to record the evidence of the public witnesses with expedition and preferably within a period of three months or so from the date already fixed for prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid directions, both these petitions stand disposed of. / SUNIL GAUR, J November 4, 2008 d kg Page 3