Sujit Kumar Singh v. State Of NCT Delhi
$~88 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2557/2024 SUJIT KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Ms.
Pragya Parijat Singh, Mr. Lakshay Saini and Ms. Jayita Verma, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for State with Insp. Sandeep, PS Ranhola.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
O R D E R
% 11.12.2024 1.
This is a petition seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 0402/2022 dated 25.04.2022 registered at PS Ranhola, Outer District, Delhi under Section 302/201 IPC.
2.
As per the FIR, the applicant is the brother of the deceased. The deceased was brought by the applicant to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital after he started vomiting blood at home, where the deceased was declared as 'brought dead' by the concerned doctor. FSL crime scene team conducted inspection of the house where deceased lived with the applicant and another. The incident revealed that the blood had been cleaned from the crime scene. The applicant was thereby arrested for allegedly murdering his brother i.e. playing an active role in the commission of the said offence. 3.
It is stated by Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the present case the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2022 and the blood stains on the clothes of the petitioner are because of the reason that it was the petitioner who took his deceased brother to the hospital after the incident of stabbing. Ms. Singh further states that it is the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2024 at 12:53:38
investigation by the prosecution which is deficient as there are no CDR which link the deceased to the wife of the petitioner to show that there was any intimacy between the two. Hence, no motive is proved. It is further stated that the petitioner has clean antecedents and a minor child. 4.
Only seven witnesses out of nineteen have been examined and the trial will take considerable amount of time 5.
In the present case, the facts that weigh with me are that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife was recovered from the kitchen at the instance of the petitioner. In addition, there is no justification as to why the petitioner changed the clothes of the deceased after the incidence of stabbing. It is also stated that in the room, where the deceased was stabbed there was nobody else other than the petitioner.
6.
According to me, these are issues which require evidence and trial. The allegations against the petitioner are of a serious nature. In addition, the fact that the knife was recovered and at the instance of the petitioner and the clothes of the deceased were changed by the petitioner. There are also allegations that the petitioner washed the area where the blood of the deceased had spilled.
7.
Accordingly, for the above said reasons, I am unable to entertain the petition. It is dismissed. Nothing shall tantamount to merits and the observations made above are only for purpose of deciding the case. JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 11, 2024/ab Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/12/2024 at 12:53:38