Delhi High Court
Ram Chand @ Raju & Ors. vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 25 January, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Bail Appl. No.2490/2009
% Judgment reserved on: 21st January, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 25th January, 2010
1. Ram Chand @ Raju,
S/o. Shri Om Prakash Verma,
R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti,
Timarpur,
Delhi-110054.
2. Harish,
S/o. Shri Om Prakash Verma,
R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti,
Timarpur,
Delhi-110054.
3. Om Prakash Verma,
S/o. Shri Siyaram,
R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti,
Timarpur,
Delhi-110054. ....Petitioners.
Through: Mr. Vinod Khanna, Adv.
Versus
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) ... Respondent.
Through: Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 Page 1 of 4
V.B.Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of application for grant of anticipatory bail filed
on behalf of petitioners.
2. Present case was registered on the statement of the complainant Anil
Kumar on 19.10.2009, regarding the alleged occurrence on 17.10.2009 wherein,
complainant has alleged that when he with his friend Rockey was going to police
station for lodging complaint against petitioner No.1 and have reached near Balak
Ram Bus Stand, petitioner No.1 intervened and asked him where he was going.
Complainant further alleges that Sonu, Tiku and Arjun were also present there at
that time. Sonu caught hold of the complainant from behind and said "Ram
Chand maar saale ko". Rockey was caught by Tiku and the complainant was
dragged in the Gali. Petitioner No.1 picked a danda and hit him on his head. In
the meanwhile, his father (petitioner No.3) and brother Harish (petitioner No.2)
came there with dandas and started beating the complainant. On receiving
injuries, the complainant fell down and even then the petitioners continued beating
him. It was further alleged that the complainant became unconscious and when he
was taken in the police van he regained consciousness and saw his brother Shiv
Kumar and Deepak are also having received injuries. It is further alleged that
petitioners had caused injuries to him with the intention to kill him.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have
been falsely implicated in this case. Initially, a Kalandara under Section 107/151
Cr. P.C. was prepared against petitioner No.1. Later on, present FIR was
registered on 19th October, 2009. There has been delay in lodging of the FIR and
as such petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for State that as per
statement of the complainant, present petitioners gave beating with danda to the
complainant and his brothers Shiv Kumar and Deepak who also received injuries.
As per medical report, complainant has suffered grievous injuries, while two other
injured received simple injuries. Petitioners are absconding and they are not
joining the investigation and as such bail application should be dismissed.
5. As per FIR, serious allegations have been made against petitioners.
Petitioners have caused serious injuries to one of the injured, while simple injuries
have been caused to other two injured.
6. In Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 366, the Apex Court has
laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:-
"(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary
character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
cases only;
(ii) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the
limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are
implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well;
(iii) In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the
petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise
of the power to grant anticipatory bail."
7. Supreme Court in a recent decision, HDFC Vs. J.J. Mannan @ J. M.
John Paul and Anr.; 2009 (14) SCALE 724, observed;
"The object of Section 438 Cr. P. C has been repeatedly
explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a
person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy
the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the
same time the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P. C. cannot also
be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the
Court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is
filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to
violence to the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P. C., since even
though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and
charge is framed against him he may still not appear before the
Court at all even during the trial. Section 438 Cr. P. C.
contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a
mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be
arrested during the period of investigation. Once the
investigation makes out a case against him and he is included
as an accused in the charge sheet, the accused has to surrender
to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail".
8. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries
sustained by the injured persons and the fact that petitioners are absconding, no
ground is made out for anticipatory bail.
9. Hence, application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioners is
hereby dismissed.
25th January, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
RB
