Mithai Lal vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3907 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         + CRL.M.C.802/2010

                                                 Decided on 20.08.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

MITHAI LAL                                    ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr. A.C. David, Adv.

                    versus

STATE & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                              Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
                                        Mr. S. Shahi, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may         No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?        No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                No
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section

439(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 26.2.2010, passed by the

learned ASJ in FIR No.241/2009, under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC

registered with PS R.K. Puram, New Delhi, by which the bail application of

the accused, Sunil Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased daughter of the

petitioner herein, was allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned trial court

adopted a very casual approach while deciding the bail application of the

respondent No.2. It is further stated that it was not safe to admit the

respondent No.2 on bail as he may not be available at a later stage,

particularly, since the accused No.4, Smt. Leela Wati (mother of

respondent No.2) could not be arrested by the police for a long period of

time and had to be declared a proclaimed offender by the trial court. It is

lastly stated that admitting the respondent No.2 to bail would result in

threatening the public witnesses and harassing them.

3. Pertinently, the petitioner has also assailed the order of bail

granted in favour of Ram Niwas, father of the respondent No.2, father-in-

law of the deceased daughter of the petitioner, on almost the same

grounds. By a separate order passed today, the aforesaid petition has

been rejected. Even in the present case, this Court is not persuaded by

the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to

note that while granting bail to the respondent No.2, the learned ASJ

made the same conditional. The respondent No.2 was directed not to

visit the area where the complainant party resided. He was further

directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the court

and also to report to the concerned police station on every Monday at

10.00 AM. Further, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the

complainant was represented before the learned ASJ through the same

counsel who is representing him in the present matter. So, it is not a

case where the stand of the complainant was not taken into consideration

by the learned ASJ while passing the impugned order dated 26.2.2010.

A perusal of the order shows that the counsel for the State was also duly

heard.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that the respondent No.2

has been adhering to all the conditions of bail as imposed in the order

dated 26.2.2010 and the State is not aggrieved by the order of grant of

bail to the respondent No.2. On inquiry, the learned APP for the State

also confirms that there has not been any complaint of influencing or

threatening the public witnesses on the part of the respondent No.2 for

cancellation of the bail order operating in his favour. He further submits

that the case is at advance stage where evidence of four of the witnesses

has already been recorded and the cross-examination of the PW-4 is

listed on 3.9.2010.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, where the trial is stated to be at an advance stage of recording

evidence of the remaining witnesses of the prosecution, apart from the

material witnesses, whose deposition is almost complete, and in view of

the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out any attempt on

the part of the respondent No.2 of threatening the witnesses, mis-using

his liberty or tampering with the evidence and further as there is no

complaint of the State against the respondent No.2 of non-adherence to

the conditions of bail imposed on him, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in the impugned order granting bail to the respondent No.2.

The order of the ASJ is upheld being neither perverse, nor arbitrary. The

petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                         (HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 20, 2010                                             JUDGE
sk