Delhi High Court
Suman vs State & Ors on 28 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 3913/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 28th November, 2011
SUMAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.A. 18453/2011
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL. M.C. 3913/2011
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order
dated 11.11.2011 of District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Incharge
North-West District, Rohini Courts whereby the ld. Trial Judge
directed the respondents to be released on anticipatory bail.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the accused in
the present case are 21 in number. Three ladies were gangraped by
them on 02.02.2009 and on same date, complaint was lodged to the
police. However, FIR was lodged on 24.03.2009 only under Section
324 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Thereafter, petitioner filed the petition before this court and vide
order dated 06.03.2010, whereby this Court directed the police to
record the statement of the prosecutrix / petitioner.
4. Thereafter, police filed the chargesheet under Section 324 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 on 02.09.2010 and thereafter the matter was placed
before the trial court and vide order dated 15.11.2010, ld. Trial Judge
again directed the police to investigate further. Again on 24.12.2010,
ld. Trial Jude passed the order and directed the Senior Officer of the
police to monitor the instant case.
5. On 14.04.2011, Second chargesheet was filed and that again
under Section 323/324 Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, only one
section i.e. 323 of IPC was added in the said chargesheet.
6. On 16.10.2011, ld. Trial Judge has recorded in the said order
that the statements of complainant were recorded on 23.03.2010,
pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2010 passed by Delhi High Court. In
the said order, I note 21 alleged accused has been mentioned in the
complaint.
7. After considering all facts, ld. Trial Judge vide order dated
16.10.2011 passed the order that in spite of the fact that as per the
statement, prima facie seems to be commission of offence such as
causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means, wrongful confinement,
assault / use of criminal force with the intent to outrage the modesty of
the complainants, kidnapping or abducting with the intend to
wrongfully confine one of the complainants, commission of rape,
attempt to commit rape, commission of gang rape, attempt to commit
gang rape, attempt to commit murder, robbery, causing hurt in
committing robbery, lurking house trespass or house breaking by night
in order to commit offence and causing grievous hurt while committing
such house trespass.
8. Ld. Trial Court has recorded in the said order that the allegations
levelled by the complainant, prima facie show the commission of
various offences mentioned above by all the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention named by the complainant.
9. It is also recorded that this is not the stage to go into the merit of
the case in detail. As per the material on record, cognizance has taken
for offences under Section 324/326/354/365/366/392/394/342/376/511/
307/452/457/459 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
all the 21 respondents / accused.
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that in order
dated 11.11.2011, it is also recorded by the ld. Trial judge that all 21
respondents / accused was granted interim protection vide order dated
13.10.2011, whereas the order was passed on 13.10.2010 and the
applications of all the accused were dismissed.
11. The present petition is against the anticipatory bail granted to the
respondents / accused persons after seeing the entirety into view of the
case.
12. The police investigated the case and filed the chargesheet twice.
Firstly under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thereafter under
Section 323/324 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, the cognizance
has already taken for the offences mentioned in Para - 8 of above.
13. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the instant case into
view, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by ld. Trial
Judge.
14. Accordingly Crl. M.C. 3913 is dismissed.
15. The observation made in the present order shall not come in the
way in disposal of the matter on merit before the Trial court.
SURESH KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
jg
