Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Page 1 of 5 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Date of Decision: 24.08.2011 BALBIR SINGH @ KALU …… Petitioner Through: Mr.K.K. Manan, Adv. with Mr.N.Bhardwaj, Adv. Versus STATE …… Respondent Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. 1. This is a petition for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner, Balbir Singh @ Kalu, in respect of FIR No.259/2010, registered under section 302/34 IPC at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, in respect of which the trial is pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Page 2 of 5 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on receipt of DD No.2A, dated 26.07.2010, the IO reached Jeevan Mala Hospital, Delhi, where doctors had declared one Mr.Narender, s/o Late Sh.Satyanarayan, R/o B-1448, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, aged about 36 years having been brought dead with a history of multiple punctured wounds over chest and upper limbs. On the basis of the statement of one Anil, brother of the deceased, accused Balbir Singh @ Kalu, s/o Sh.Harjeet Singh, R/o B-1331, Shastri Nagar, Delhi was arrested and FIR No.259/2010 was registered for an offence under section 302 IPC by PS Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The pocker allegedly used as the weapon of offence, was also recovered, near Udham Singh School, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, at the instance of the accused. Blood stained Santro car and the blood stained clothes belonging to the petitioner was also recovered apart from accused, Balbir @ Kalu. Blood stained earth was also taken from the front of H.No.B-1448, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, which was sent for examination to Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Page 3 of 5 Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed and presently the case is pending trial and out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 15 witnesses have been examined. 3. Mr.K.K. Manan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that PW-2/Surjeet, who is one of the eye- witnesses, was not known to the petitioner and no Test Identification Parade was done. Secondly, it has been stated that the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased, Narender was stabbed allegedly by the present petitioner in his shop, while as one chappal and blood was found splattered outside the shop, which clearly reflects that there is a serious contradiction in the prosecution story with regard to the place, where the incident is purported to have taken place. So far as the motive is concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no motive for the petitioner to murder, the deceased, Narender and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Page 4 of 5 4. Mr.Naveen Sharma, learned APP has contested the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the learned counsel by raising the question of TIP has tried to assail the evidence on merits, which cannot be done at this stage, when the trial is pending and is at penultimate stage. It has been stated that the petitioner had not only stabbed the deceased in the shop but also on the road side in as much as one chappal of the deceased was found inside the shop while as the other was found on the road side. Blood was spotted both inside the shop and outside the shop, which clearly shows that after the deceased was attacked either he was dragged out of the shop by the petitioner or he had run after the accused, namely, the present petitioner. This fact of recovery of chappal at two places has also been recorded by the IO in his seizure memo, while taking into custody the various articles from the place of occurrence. It has been contended that the substantial number of witnesses have already been examined and it has already come on Bail Appl. No.742/2011 Page 5 of 5 record that the petitioner had a motive in attacking the deceased in as much as the deceased had seen the petitioner dropping one Swati, daughter of one of the neighbour of the deceased with whom the petitioner was having a love affair. It is also alleged that the accused was apprehensive that Narender will disclose the affair between the accused and Swati and, therefore, the accused tried to remove Narender from his way. 5. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the nature of evidence, especially the penultimate stage of trial, I feel that it is not a fit case where the accused should be enlarged on bail. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. August 24, 2011 ss