Naresh Kumar and Bittu Vs. State

Naresh Kumar and Bittu vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 24, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692628

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/692628
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Sat Pal, J.
Decided On: Mar 24, 1993
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 3024 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 - Section 439-Prosecution witness though not supporting the story of prosecution in his examination in chief but supporting in his cross examination-more prosecution witnesses to be produced-bail refused. (Para 4) - - ' I would not like to appreciate the evidence so far recorded befo...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh Kumar and Bittu

Advocate R.L. Panjwani and; A.K. Singh, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439
Reported In: 1993(25)DRJ599

Excerpt

criminal procedure code 1973 - section 439-prosecution witness though not supporting the story of prosecution in his examination in chief but supporting in his cross examination-more prosecution witnesses to be produced-bail refused. (para 4) - - ' i would not like to appreciate the evidence so far recorded before the learned trial judge as certain other witnesses are yet to be examined......filed earlier a similar petition bearing no.crl.m(m)1062/92 and inter alias had contended that two co-accused, namely, suresh kumar and pradeep kumar had been released on bail. the said petition was dismissed by a learned judge of this court vide order dated 29th july, 1992. it was mentioned in this order that the said two accused simply caught hold of the deceased whereas the petitioner was armed with a knife and is alleged to have caused injury on a vital part of the body.(2) in the present petition, it has been submitted that when the earlier bail petition, of the petitioner was dismissed on 29th july. 1992, the evidence of the eye witnesses had not been recorded. but now the evidence of both the eye witnesses, namely, pawan kumar, s/o laxman dass, (public witness -1) and pawan kumar s/o rameshwar dass, (public witness -2) has been recorded on 21st september, 1992 and 22nd september, 1992 and both these witnesses have been declared hostile. accordingly, the lower court records were summoned.(3) mr. panjwani, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of both the eye witnesses mentioned hereinabove and has contended that both the said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution in their examination-in-chief and as such the petitioner should be released on bail. mr. a.k. singh the learned counsel for the state, however, submitted that pw-i pawan kumar in his crossexamination has supported the case of the prosecution.(4) i have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the statements of pw-1 and pw-2 recorded before the learned trial judge. it is correct that pw-i in his examination-in-chief has not supported the case of prosecution, but in his cross examination he has stated that 'it is correct that when charanjit @ bittu went to them to call them to me, pradeep kumar and suresh caught hold of bittu and naresh @ bittu hit charanjit with a.....

Full Judgment

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for release on bail under Section 439 of the of Crl.Procedure. The petitioner had filed earlier a similar petition bearing No.Crl.M(M)1062/92 and inter alias had contended that two co-accused, namely, Suresh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar had been released on bail. The said petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 29th July, 1992. It was mentioned in this order that the said two accused simply caught hold of the deceased whereas the petitioner was armed with a knife and is alleged to have caused injury on a vital part of the body.

(2) In the present petition, it has been submitted that when the earlier bail petition, of the petitioner was dismissed on 29th July. 1992, the evidence of the eye witnesses had not been recorded. But now the evidence of both the eye witnesses, namely, Pawan Kumar, S/o Laxman Dass, (Public Witness -1) and Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Dass, (Public Witness -2) has been recorded on 21st September, 1992 and 22nd September, 1992 and both these witnesses have been declared hostile. Accordingly, the lower Court records were summoned.

(3) Mr. Panjwani, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of both the eye witnesses mentioned hereinabove and has contended that both the said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution in their examination-in-chief and as such the petitioner should be released on bail. Mr. A.K. Singh the learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that PW-I Pawan Kumar in his crossexamination has supported the case of the prosecution.

(4) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded before the learned trial Judge. It is correct that PW-I in his examination-in-chief has not supported the case of prosecution, but in his cross examination he has stated that 'it is correct that when Charanjit @ Bittu went to them to call them to me, Pradeep Kumar and Suresh caught hold of Bittu and Naresh @ Bittu hit Charanjit with a knife on the left lower portion of his chest.' I would not like to appreciate the evidence so far recorded before the learned Trial Judge as certain other witnesses are yet to be examined. However, keeping in view the statement of PW-1 as a whole, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(5) Lower court's records be sent back forthwith.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1993 Same Parties Naresh Kumar and Bittu vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sat Pal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Criminal