Dinesh Attri vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5769 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Reserve: 13th December, 2010
                                               Date of Order: 20th December, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 2583/2010
%                                                            20.12.2010
      Dinesh Attri                                           ... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate &
                    Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate
             Versus
      State & Anr.                             ... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                    Mr. S.P.Kaushal & Mr. Nagender Prasad, Advs. for R-2

+ Crl.M.C.No. 2639/2010
%                                                                 20.12.2010

        Dinesh Attri                                              ... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate &
                        Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate
               Versus
        State & Anr.                                     ... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                        Mr. S.P.Kaushal & Mr. Nagender Prasad, Advs. for R-2

+ Crl.M.C.No. 2637/2010
%                                                                 20.12.2010

        Dinesh Attri                                              ... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. L.S.Chaudhary, Advocate &
                        Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate
               Versus
        State & Anr.                                     ... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                        Mr. S.P.Kaushal & Mr. Nagender Prasad, Advs. for R-2

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

These petitions have been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of

bail granted to the respondents by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is

submitted by the petitioner that learned ASJ did not exercise his jurisdiction

judiciously and granted bail to the accused persons in FIR No. 163/2010

registered under Section 308/365/427/34 IPC PS Sector 23 Dwarka, contrary to

the established principles of law.

2. Brief facts necessary for considering the present petition are that

the complainant/petitioner in this case made a complaint to police that on 22nd

May, 2010 when he was near Sports Complex Sector 11 Dwarka in his car No.

DL 5CD 5418, a white Accent car whose last digits were 89 chased his car but he

somehow managed to reach home. However, on 23rd May, 2010 at 7.00 pm

while he was returning home in his car after evening walk in Sector 11 park, the

same white car chased him. There were two more cars along with it, one was

SX4 and another one was Wagon-R. All the persons in these cars forcibly

stopped his car in front of Sector 10, Godrej Apartments, surrounded his car and

started assaulting his car with lathis and dandas and then pulled him out of the

car. He was given severe beatings and then forcibly pushed inside the Wagon-R

car. In that car one boy viz. Malik, resident of KM apartments with a pistol and

03-04 boys were already there. They took him to jungle near Sector 19 Dwarka

booster pump where 14-15 boys collected one by one and they all gave him

beatings with dandas, lathis and iron rods. One of them shouted that his eyes

should be bulged out with a knife. Out of the boys, who gave beatings to him, he

knew three of them viz. Malik, Abhishek Sehrawat & Joginder. These three boys

had also given him beatings with the intention to kill him. Injuries were caused all

over his body including his head, face and other parts of the body and he was

thrown in jungle near Sector 11 Dwarka Metro Station presumed to be dead. The

victim was later on brought to hospital by one Anurag, in a very bad shape. Even

at the time of making statement to IO he was in severe injured condition and

statement was made by him in presence of his brother Ajit Singh.

3. MLC of the victim prepared at the hospital showed that there were

multiple CLWs on scalp and on left parietal occipital region and there were

multiple abrasions over scalp and face, extensive bruises and blackish

discoloration on back, bruises over both sides of face, bruises over abdomen,

vertical CLW of 4cm size bone deep on left leg, vertical CLW of 3cm size bone

deep on right leg, tear of lower lip of size 2cmX2cmX2cm from gum margin to

medieval margin and the wounds were actively bleeding. Nature of injuries was

of three types - simple, grievous and dangerous. The victim had to remain in

hospital for about 17 days. A case against the accused persons was registered

under Section 365 and 308 IPC.

4. The learned Sessions Judge in this case initially passed an order

on an anticipatory bail application of the accused persons directing investigating

agency not to arrest the accused persons. This order was assailed before this

Court and this Court vide order dated 5th July, 2010 in Crl. M.C. No. 2073/2010

set aside the order on the ground that the order was patently an illegal order.

Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and then the learned Additional

Session judge vide impugned order dated 3rd August, 2010 admitted the accused

persons to bail on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety on the

ground that two-day police custody remand was given to the prosecution and the

prosecution did not prefer extension of police remand and MLC of the injured did

not show any bullet injury. The prosecution had also failed to recover the

vehicles during police remand.

5. I find that the learned Additional Session Judge in this case totally

gave a go-bye to his duty of considering the seriousness of the offence and the

manner in which offence was committed. While granting bail to an accused

person, the Court has not only to keep the liberty of accused in mind, because

accused is presumed innocent till proved guilty, but the Court has also to keep in

mind the seriousness of the offence, prima facie evidence, the safety of society

and the victim. If the Legislature wanted that every accused should remain on

bail till he was not proved guilty, the Legislature would have made every offence

bailable. But the very fact that Legislature had made certain offences non-

bailable and certain bailable, shows that the Legislature reposed faith in Courts

that the Courts shall exercise this discretion of granting bail prudently and shall

give bail only in deserving cases where probability of accused being innocent

was reflected from the facts. Where the accused persons were named by the

complainant, as he knew them from before and the complainant had been

kidnapped and beaten so brutally that his whole body was full of injuries and

thereafter he was left to die, I consider granting bail to such accused persons

within 15 days of the arrest shows the callous attitude of the Court below to the

settled legal position, to society and to the victim.

6. The Courts are not meant only to protect the liberty of accused

persons, they are also meant to protect the society from the hands of criminals

and that is why it is important that discretion of granting bail must be exercised

judiciously by the Courts, keeping in view the crime scenario in the society and

the boldness with which the criminals, let loose at society by the Courts and the

police, roam around and inflict fatal wounds on the society at will. It is noteworthy

that respondents herein were also involved in similar type of other incidents and

FIRs were registered against them in respect of waylaying persons and making

attempts on their lives. Two of such incidents have been placed on record. One

FIR is 694/06 under Section 308/341/427/509/34 IPC PS Dwarka in which one of

the accused was involved in a similar offence of stopping car of the another

victim and who was in car with his wife and making obscene gestures to the wife

and using abusive language for the wife. When the victim protested he was

dragged out of the car and given beatings with bats and dandas. The second

FIR is FIR No. 165/04 under Section 307/427/34 IPC and under Arms Act PS

Delhi Cantt. The petitioner has also placed on record the photographs of the

victim showing the brutal manner in which the victim was beaten all over the

body. The MLC of the victim itself shows that his whole body was full of bruises,

multiple injuries, bone deep cuts and his face was also disfigured by cutting it

from lip, I consider that the learned trial Court did not exercise his discretion

judiciously and granted bail to these accused persons contrary to established

principles of law. It is settled law that in case of serious nature where the

accused persons are professional criminals and have other involvements, the bail

should not be granted in a casual manner. While granting bail the safety of the

victim and the safety of the society also must be kept in mind. Even if the

accused persons had been acquitted in some case, acquittal in a case does not

mean that accused had no involvement in the crime. Acquittal takes place

because of several reasons - the witnesses did not muster courage to depose

truth or may have been won over, the witnesses though deposed in the Court but

were not believed or they were so much harassed by repeated visits to the Court

that they had stopped appearing in the Court for deposing.

7. I consider it is a fit case where the bail of the accused/respondents

should be cancelled. The petitions are allowed. The bail order passed by the

learned trial Court is set aside and bail is cancelled. The respondents be

arrested and put to jail.

December 20, 2010                                   SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn