Siddharth Mridul, J. - (1.)The present is an application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 218/2012 under Sec. 302/392/394/411/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station -Timar Pur. The accused has been in judicial custody since 03.10.2012 and only 17 witnesses out of the total of 41 witnesses have been examined during the trial. It is also noticed that two public witnesses are yet to be examined.
(2.)Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that he has been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement and that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that, the IO in the subject case has not produced any cogent material to show that he enquired about the commission of the subject offence from the neighbours of the deceased victim. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that the fingerprints lifted from the scene of crime do not match those of the applicant as per the CFSL report. Counsel submits that the statements of the complainant in the DD entry and the FIR are at variance. Lastly, it is urged by counsel for the applicant that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and not a single ingredient required in the case of circumstantial evidence is available against the applicant.
(3.)On the contrary Mr. Katyal, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has invited my attention to the charge -sheet filed in the subject FIR which according to him discloses the sequence of events leading up to the commission of the subject offence to urge that the applicant is a resident of B -115, Delhi Administration Flat, which is located right across the flat of the deceased victim. Mr. Katyal, learned APP, further states that the call detail record of the mobile telephone being used by the applicant, verified as belonging to his mother, prior and at the time of commission of the offence clearly demonstrates that the applicant and the co -accused were present at the location where the alleged offence was committed, before and at the relevant time. Further it demonstrates that there were numerous calls and SMSs received and sent between the applicant and his co -accused immediately prior to the commission of the offence. It is lastly urged that a gold chain belonging to the deceased victim and identified by the complainant during his examination was recovered from the possession of the applicant on the very next day.