Ravi Prakash & Ors vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 2983 Del

*       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +BAIL APPLN. 442/2012
                                             Date of Decision: 04.05.2012

RAVI PRAKASH & ORS                                        ..... Petitioner
                 Through:              Mr. R.P. Luthra, Ms. Tanushree
                                       Banerjee & Mr. Navin Jakhar,
                                       Advs.
                       Versus

STATE                                                     ..... Respondent
                            Through:   Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the
                                       State.
                                       Mr. Devanand, Adv. for the
                                       complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This order dispossess a petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. seeking bail in FIR No. 97/2012 under section 452/323/427/506/34 IPC, P.S. Jagatpuri.

2. The allegations against the petitioners Ravi Prakash, Amit and Gagan are that they along with their co-accused Rakesh armed with dandas and lathies forcibly entered the house of the complainant and started beating him and his sons and caused them injuries and threatened them to be killed. Thereafter they damaged the cars of the complainant parked just outside the house with dandas and lathies.

3. The only ground on which the bail is sought is that the petitioners and their associates also received injuries in the incident and a cross case

was registered against the complainant party also. It is also urged that the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity since the complainant and his associates, who are the accused in the cross case, have already been released on bail. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Bashishth Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 487.

4. On the other hand, the leaned APP strongly opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioners stating that the assault was initiated by the petitioners and co-accused Rakesh, who in a well planned manner and duly armed with dandas and lathies forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and gave them severe beatings and also damaged the properties including the cars. It was submitted that the complainant in their self defence tried to save themselves and in the process the complainant and his associates received injuries. It is also submitted that proceedings under section 82/83 Cr. P.C. have been initiated against the petitioners as they are absconding. It is also submitted that the investigation was at the crucial stage and the recovery of the weapons used was yet to be effected.

5. With regard to the case of Bashishth Singh (supra) it may be noted that said case related to regular bail on its peculiar facts. In the present case the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. From the allegations as set out against them, it is seen that all the four accused persons had armed themselves with dandas and lathies and then forcibly entered the house of the complainant and started murderous assault on the complainant and his family members. They not only continued their assaults, but also threatened them to be killed and also

damaged their vehicles parked outside their house. If the complainant and his family members had tried to save themselves and in the process the petitioners sustained some injuries of simple nature, that would not be a ground for making the argument of parity. The petitioners were the starters of the criminal assault, unlike the complainants who were the defenders.

6. It is trite that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, it is to be seen that no prejudice is caused to free, fair and full investigation.

7. It is also noted that an application of anticipatory bail on similar grounds filed by the petitioners Amit and Ravi Prakash was dismissed by the ASJ vide detailed order dated 14.03.2012 and another application filed by the all the petitioners on the similar grounds was dismissed by the ASJ on 26.03.2012. There is no change of any fact or circumstance since then. Rather, the proceedings under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated against the petitioners. The case is at the crucial stage of investigation and the weapons used by the petitioners are yet to be recovered.

8. In view of the above, the petition is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

MAY 04, 2012 awanish