Parvej v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1357/2018 PARVEJ ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Ms. Nusrat Hussain, Adv.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI Neeraj PS Timarpur.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 04.12.2018 By this petition the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 342/2017 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at PS Timarpur.

The above-noted FIR was registered on the complaint of Guddu after an information was received from the Trauma Centre Hospital at PS Timarpur vide DD No. 6A. Guddu has given an alleged history of gun shot injury, stating that he was shot by Mehraj and others. In his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer Guddu stated that he was doing the business of property dealing from his residence-cum-office and there was a dispute qua land with his uncles Mehraj and Parvej. On 30th July, 2017 at about 8 PM he along with his uncles Mehraj went to a distance on foot and thereafter hired one three wheeler for reaching Sabhapur village where the petitioner herein Parvej, his other uncle along with his friends who was also BAIL APPLN. 1357/2018

named Parvej met them in a white colour Scorpio car. Guddu and his uncle Mehraj were also made to board the car. Four of them went to Ghaziabad and kept roaming the entire night. In the morning when he woke up, felt like urinating his uncle Mehraj and Parvej also got down and his uncle Mehraj gave him gun shot in the stomach stating that he would finish him on that day. Parvej also shouted to inflict gun shot on the head. Guddu has since been examined as a witness before the Trial Court. The allegations against the petitioner are that after Mehraj gave a shot, the petitioner shouted that gunshot injury be inflicted on the head of Guddu, however seeing 2-3 passer-by they fled away.

Considering the role assigned to the petitioner as also the fact that the complainant has been examined and the petitioner has been now in custody for more than one year, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, further subject to the condition that in case of change of residential address the petitioner will intimate the same to the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit. Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

DECEMBER 04, 2018 'ga'

BAIL APPLN. 1357/2018