Irfan @ Pappu vs State & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4028 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    BAIL APPLICATION No.1002/2011


                            Date of Decision : 18.08.2011

IRFAN @ PAPPU                                   ...... Petitioner
                               Through:   Counsel for the petitioner.
                                                 (appearance not given)



                              Versus


STATE & ANR.                               ......      Respondent
                               Through:   Mr.Naveen Sharma,
                                          Advocate.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment ?                  NO
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?                                 NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition, filed by the petitioner for grant of

anticipatory bail, in respect of FIR No.302/2011, registered

under section 307/34 IPC at P.S. Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

allegations against the petitioner are that he had inflicted

injuries on the injured with the help of a churri, while as the

medical record shows that the injuries were caused by an

ustara and, therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated.

3. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the other two co-accused have already been

enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court and,

therefore, the petitioner may also be extended the benefit of

grant of bail.

4. Mr.Naveen Sharma, learned APP, has opposed the bail

application, on the ground that the injuries were caused by

the petitioner with the help of a churri and it is a case of

attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention. It has

also been stated that the recovery of knife is yet to be effected

from the accused.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned APP. I have also gone through the order dated

12.07.2011, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge,

Saket, New Delhi, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of

the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order, dated

12.07.2011, passed by the learned ADJ.

6. Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused and the

facts of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case where the

petitioner should be enlarged on bail.

7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 18, 2011 SS