CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagmohan@ Jaggu vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 16 August 2018 · Citation: (2018) 08 DEL CK 0213

HON’BLE JUDGES
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 54, 59
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 1286 OF 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 398 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.352/2017 under Section 307 IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act.

2.

The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant along with his brother and the petitioner and other friends were celebrating the release of the

brother of the complainant from jail in another case.

3.

At night when they were drinking, it is contended, that there was an altercation between the brother of the complainant as well as the petitioner.

It is contended that the petitioner took out a country made pistol and threatened to shoot the brother of the petitioner. However, there was a quarrel.

Subsequently, a shot was fired which hit the brother of the complainant.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submits that all the alleged eyewitnesses, who

were present at the spot, have been examined before the Trial Court and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations of the prosecution that the weapon was recovered from the petitioner is

suspect, as the weapon is alleged to have been recovered at 9 am in the morning from the petitioner, who was alleged to be present at the spot and the

incident is of around 12 in the night. He further submits that there is no scientific evidence or finger prints taken from the weapon to connect the

petitioner with the weapon and even the gun powder residue test has not been conducted on the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner has been in custody since 15.12.2017.

7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of

regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

concerned Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything which may

prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.

8.

The petition is disposed of in terms of above.

9.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.