Javed @ Monish v. State

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2231/2020 JAVED @ MONISH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate.

Versus

STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

O R D E R

% 15.09.2020 1.

The present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No. 568/2019 registered under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at P.S. Narela Industrial Area.

2.

Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is in custody since 18.09.2019, has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed therefore, the petitioner is no more required to be kept in custody. 3.

Dr. M.P. Singh, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application. He submits that the incident occurred on account of intervention made by the injured in a matrimonial dispute of the petitioner. As the injured tried to intervene, the petitioner opened fire with a country BAIL APPLN. 2231/2020 1 of 2

made pistol which resulted in a bullet hitting the stomach of the injured. Subsequently, the injured was operated upon and the bullet was extracted. Later, another operation was conducted, and the remaining part of the cracked bullet was also removed. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested in another case being FIR No. 407/2019 registered at P.S. Narela where recovery of a country made pistol was affected from the petitioner. The said recovered weapon in the aforementioned FIR No. 407/2019 and other exhibits have been sent to FSL and the report is still awaited. It is also submitted that the injured is yet to be examined. Learned APP further states that the petitioner is involved in total 17 cases. 4.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the list of involvements and submits that the petitioner is already on bail in almost all the other cases except in one matter.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of the trial and the fact that the injured is yet to be examined, I do not find any reason to admit the petitioner on bail.

6.

Bail application is dismissed.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 ga BAIL APPLN. 2231/2020 2 of 2