Angrej Chaudhary @ Pujari Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Girish Kathpalia, J

The  accused/applicant  seeks  regular  bail  in  case  FIR  No.  29/2021  of Police Station Patel Nagar for offence under Section 302/201/34 of IPC.

This bail application was listed for the first hearing on 07.02.2025 before the predecessor bench and remained pending before different benches. Finally, along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench. Today is the first effective hearing before this bench. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Pankaj Kumar Thakur.

Broadly  speaking, the prosecution case is that the accused/applicant and his co-accused Shivam were hired by wife of the deceased and her paramour to kill the deceased. It is alleged that the accused/applicant and co- accused Shivam stabbed the deceased to death.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he has been falsely  implicated  in  this  case  and  is  incarcerated  since  30.06.2021  despite there being no legally admissible evidence against him.  It is contended that all public witnesses already stand examined.

Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on the ground that there is strong evidence connecting the accused/applicant with the alleged offence.  It is contended that the  accused/applicant is  a  friend  of  co-accused Shivam and he came from Barabanki to Delhi on 06.02.2021, after which he committed murder of the deceased. The only evidence against the accused/applicant is his travel from Barabanki to Delhi on the night intervening 05.02.2021 and 06.02.2021; his telephonic connectivity with accused Shivam  to the extent of ten phone calls between them during the period from 06.02.2021 to 07.02.2021; and the knife used in the offence recovered  at  the instance of  the  accused/applicant.  Apart  from that,  there  is also a phone call on 06.02.2021 between the accused/applicant and paramour of wife of the deceased. There is no other evidence against the accused/applicant as per learned prosecutor.

But despite taking substantial time, flipping through pages of the investigation file, the IO assisted by another Sub Inspector is unable to show the Customer Application Forms of the accused/applicant, co-accused Shivam and paramour of wife of the  deceased. Even the relevant CDRs are not produced by the IO to show the alleged telephonic connectivity.

So far as the alleged recovery of knife is concerned, the same was recovered according to prosecution side on 01.07.2021 from near a metro pillar whereas the alleged offence took place on the night intervening 07.02.2021 and 08.02.2021. One wonders as to whether the knife would remain present in that open place for a period of almost five months, awaiting to be got recovered by the accused/applicant.

However, as a matter of caution, it is made clear that the above observations have been recorded keeping in mind the nature of these proceedings but final decision on those aspects shall be taken by the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.

Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to further deprive  the  accused/applicant  liberty.  Therefore,  the  application  is  allowed and it is directed that the accused/applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a  personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant..