Skip to content


Jitender @ Bantu vs.govt of Nct of Delhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantJitender @ Bantu
RespondentGovt of Nct of Delhi
Excerpt:
.....complainant geeta and other public witnesses are yet to be recorded.5. considering the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations against the petitioner, i find no sufficient ground for grant of bail.6. the bail application is dismissed. (s.p.garg) judge november08 2016 sa bail appl.1050/2016 page 2 of 2
Judgment:

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : NOVEMBER08 2016. BAIL APPLN. 1050/2016 + JITENDER @ BANTU Through : Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. ........ Petitioner

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. Insp.Dheeraj Singh, PS Narela. S.P.GARG, J.

(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.16
under Sections 3
IPC and
Arms Act registered at Police Station Narela. Status report is on record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. I have also gone though the citation Ahkam vs.State of Uttaranchal (2001 CRI.L.J.3818) (Uttaranchal High Court).

3. The petitioner is facing trial under Section 302 IPC for allegedly committing murder of Premwati by complainant’s brother-in-law (Jija) along with his two associates. In the FIR Geeta (deceased’s daughter) had assigned specific role to Dinesh Mathur for firing at her mother when he Bail Appl.1050/2016 Page 1 of 2 had reached the spot along with his two associates. It was further informed that Dinesh and his associates had given beatings to the victim and the complainant. Supplementary statement has been recorded (page

48) on 17.06.2016. She reiterated that the assailants were three in number and one of them was her brother-in-law Dinesh. She identified the appellant to be one of the associates of her brother-in-law who along with other one had arrived at the spot. She assigned specific role to the petitioner in her supplementary statement.

4. Status report reveals that the statements of the complainant Geeta and other public witnesses are yet to be recorded.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations against the petitioner, I find no sufficient ground for grant of bail.

6. The bail application is dismissed. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER08 2016 sa Bail Appl.1050/2016 Page 2 of 2


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //