Delhi High Court
Bhupendra Kumar vs State on 23 November, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1687/2010 and CRL.M.A. 16406/2010
Decided on 23.11.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
BHUPENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Mittal and
Mr.Abhishekh Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP
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 438
read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR
No.119/2010 lodged against him by Head Constable Ravinder Kumar,
registered with PS IP Estate, ITO under Sections
109/436/147/148/149/186/353/332/427/120B/34 IPC.
2. Learned APP for the State points out an order dated 07.10.2010
passed in Bail Application No.1653/2010 filed by the petitioner, to state that
an identical application for grant of anticipatory bail had been moved by him
earlier, but the said petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, as being
devoid of merits. He submits that there are no new facts that have been
pointed out in the present petition, seeking the same relief.
3. On 20.10.2010, counsel for the petitioner had stated that though
the aforesaid Bail application was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court
on 7.10.2010, but as a matter of fact, the petitioner is seeking a review of
the said order as the same is silent on certain aspects so pointed out in the
course of arguments. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, this
matter was directed to be placed before the same Bench, subject to orders
of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
4. However, vide order dated 29.10.2010, the Single Bench
returned the matter to be listed as per the roster Bench with the observation
that it was an independent bail application filed by the petitioner and merely
because the petitioner's submissions were not incorporated in the earlier
order dated 7.10.2010, the present petition could not be heard by the said
court.
5. Vide order dated 01.11.2010, a status report was called for from
the State, which has been handed over today, with an advance copy to the
counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on the record. As per the
status report, on 4.9.2010 at 5PM one PCR call was received regarding a
quarrel in Prayas Observation Home. When the IO of the call, Head
Constable Ravinder Kumar reached Prayas Observation Home, he came to
know that the juveniles therein were raising slogans in favour of the
petitioner, who is appointed as the Superintendent there and they were
using abusive language against the Principal Magistrate of JJB-II. On the
said date, the Principal Magistrate, JJB-II was present at the Home but left
after a while. Then the Secretary of the Observation Home arrived there and
with the help of the Member Magistrate, tried to stop the juveniles, but they
did not bother and kept on sloganeering.
6. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner came from his office
and asked the children to stop hooting, whereupon the children stopped
making a noise. The petitioner then entered the Observation Home stating
that he would convince the juveniles to maintain peace, but as soon as he
entered the Home, the juveniles got violent and started damaging the doors,
windows, electronic items, computer, furniture etc., in the Observation
Home. It is further stated that the petitioner had instigated the juveniles to
raise slogans in his favour and to cause the aforesaid damage. In fact all
the records and documents in the Prosecution Branch, Ahlmad room and
counsellings room were burnt to ashes on the date of the incident. As per
the status report, the whole incident was orchestrated at the instigation of
the petitioner. Ultimately, the police entered the Observation Home after
obtaining permission from the Member Magistrate, JJB-II and overpowered
10 JCLs, who were getting violent and causing damage. 14 JCLs were found
detained in a hall.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner instigated a few juveniles and
used them for his own selfish purpose, by briefing them to cause disruption
in an enquiry being conducted against him for his removal from the position
of Superintendent. It is further stated that FIR No.118/2010 dated 4.9.2010
was also registered against the petitioner on the direction of the Principal
Magistrate, JJB-I under Section 33 J.J. Act and under Sections 323/34 IPC at
PS IP Estate. The Status Report mentions that the Principal Magistrate has
specifically mentioned that the petitioner challenged the Board by stating
that "let the Board try to remove him and he would see what the boys will
do to them". Learned APP for the State submits that in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required and at present he is not joining the investigation.
8. Counsel for the petitioner denies the aforesaid position and
submits that the status report filed by the State is an improvement on the
allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR, wherein it was only
stated that he had instigated 10 JCLs to damage the government property
and injure the Head Constable on duty. He submits that Section 436 IPC
has been added later on, which was originally not there in the FIR. He
further submits that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was not even
present at the scene as he was on leave and upon the asking of the
Secretary of the Observation Home, he had come to the Home. Lastly, he
states that till date, the petitioner has not been summoned by the
Investigating Officer for his interrogation.
9. Learned APP rebuts the aforesaid contentions and submits that
the statement to the effect that the petitioner has not been summoned for
interrogation is incorrect and fact of the matter is that the petitioner is
absconding and all efforts made to visit his house have not borne any
results. He further submits that the Status Report is based on the
investigation carried out from the date of the incident till date and cannot be
termed as an attempt to improve upon the contents of the FIR.
10. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties. Having regard
to the fact that the present petition has been filed within less than two
weeks of the earlier petition for bail preferred by the petitioner, which was
duly rejected vide order dated 07.10.2010 and as no new facts have been
placed on the record by the petitioner to justify the filing of a fresh petition
in such a short span of time and also taking into consideration the contents
of the status report and the gravity of the allegations leveled against the
petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
11. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is
rejected. The petition is dismissed, alongwith the pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 JUDGE
mk/rkb
