Delhi High Court

Varun Srivastava vs State & Anr. on 18 November, 2014

Author: Sunita Gupta

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                         Date of Decision: 18th November, 2014
+    BAIL APPLN. 2333/2014
     VARUN SRIVASTAVA                                         ..... Petitioner
                     Through:              Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate
                     versus

     STATE & ANR.                                              ..... Respondent
                                Through:   Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public
                                           Prosecutor for the State along with SI
                                           Narsingh, PS Aman Vihar
                                           Mr. Rishikesh Kumar and Ms. Neha
                                           Pratap, Advocates for complainant

+    BAIL APPLN. 2455/2013
     RAJAN PRAKASH                                           ..... Petitioner
                     Through:              Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate

                                versus

     STATE                                                     ..... Respondent
                                Through:   Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public
                                           Prosecutor for the State along with SI
                                           Narsingh, PS Aman Vihar
                                           Mr. Rishikesh Kumar and Ms. Neha
                                           Pratap, Advocates for complainant

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
                                         JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two applications

bearing bail application No.2333/2014 and 2455/2013 filed by Varun

Srivastava and Rajan Prakash respectively seeking anticipatory bail in

case FIR No.614/2013 u/s 186/353/332/506/308 r/w S.34 IPC

registered with PS Aman Vihar.

2. It is submitted by Sh. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate for the

petitioner-Varun Srivastava that the applicant is a retired Captain of

Indian Army and is recently working as volunteer of Aam Admi Party

(AAP). In the recent Assembly Election of 2013 in Delhi on the date

of the voting at about 5:30 p.m. the accused received the information

that bogus voting is going on. He reached the spot and tried to pacify

the situation but was manhandled by the SHO and other police

officials and was apprehended and taken to Police Station where a

Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was made against him. He remained in

custody and was granted bail by Special Executive Magistrate on next

day at about 5:30 PM. On the same day, one FIR was registered on

the allegation of assaulting and causing an injury to a police

constable. The content of FIR and the Kalandra refers to the same

incident. The FIR is an afterthought and is designed to implicate the

petitioner. Earlier the bail application was moved wherein interim

protection was granted to the petitioner and he had joined

investigation. However, due to wrong noting of the date, the

application was dismissed. After seeking liberty to file fresh

application, the present application has been filed. The applicant has

no criminal antecedents. He is ready to join investigation. As such, he

be released on bail.

3. On behalf of accused Rajesh, it was submitted by Mr. Rishi

Kumar, Advocate that the name of this applicant does not appear in

the Kalandra. For the first time, his name appeared in the FIR.

Interim protection was granted to the petitioner who had joined the

investigation. Witnesses are police officials, therefore, there is no

chance of influencing them. Antecedents of the petitioner are clean.

The injured was discharged from the hospital and as per the MLC,

only simple injuries were sustained by him. As such, the application

be allowed granting the relief of anticipatory bail.

4. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State on the ground that on 4th December, 2013,

D.D.No. 41B was recorded on receipt of a PCR call regarding forged

voting at Pratap Memorial Public School, Kirari Suleman Nagar

which was entrusted to Head Constable Narender who reached the

spot. Subsequently, another D.D.No.45B was recorded regarding

raising of slogan by 200 to 250 persons outside the school which was

entrusted to ASI Pradeep Kumar who also reached the spot. The

senior officers comprising of ACP Sultan Puri and SHO Aman Vihar

were also present at the spot. Inquiry revealed that there was a quarrel

between the two parties regarding bogus voting. Two persons Ashu

and Mahender were asked by the SHO, Aman Vihar to accompany

him to the police station to enquire into the matter and when they

were going to Police Station Aman Vihar, some persons claiming to

be Aam Admi Party members tried to stop government vehicle then

the senior officers tried to remove them. During this period, some

persons of Aam Admi Party started creating problems in maintaining

the law and order. As such, Varun, Ashu and Mahender Singh were

arrested under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C. They did not heed to the

warning of the police especially as the voting machines were to be

transported to the scheduled place and the safety of voting machines

was a big concern and there was immediate apprehension of breach of

public peace and commission of serious cognizable offence. During

this period, Constable Nawab Ali was found lying in unconscious

state with serious head injuries and he was immediately sent to SGM

Hospital for treatment. He was unable to give statement. On 5 th

December, 2013, statement of Constable Nawab Ali was recorded

wherein he stated that Varun and Pradeep scuffled with him. While

he was trying to get himself freed, Rajan told his associates to set on

fire the vehicle and, as such, he immediately moved forward to stop

them and then Rajan Prakash twisted his arm and Varun Srivastava hit

him on his head with a brick from front side. He started bleeding and

fell down. All these persons left the scene after giving threat to police

and thinking that he was dead.

5. It was further submitted by learned APP for the State that there

is no contradiction in the action taken by the police under Section

107/151 Cr.P.C. and the FIR. Action under Section 107/251 Cr.P.C.

was taken for maintaining public peace and tranquillity and for

prevention of occurrence of any cognizable offence whereas the FIR

was registered on the basis of obstructing the police officials in

discharging their duties and causing injuries to Constable Nawab Ali.

The allegations are serious. As such, the applicant is not entitled to be

released on bail. It was further submitted that one Pradeep is also

required to be interrogated. However, his address is not available.

Custodial interrogation of the accused is required in order to arrest

Pradeep. Furthermore, brick is required to be recovered at the instance

of accused Varun Srivastava.

6. It is not in dispute that when bail applications were filed by

the petitioners, interim protection was granted to them and it is not in

dispute that they have joined investigation. The injured was

discharged from the hospital and the injuries are opined to be simple.

It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

required in order to ascertain whereabouts of Pradeep and recovery of

brick used by Varun Srivastava is to be affected. So far as Pradeep is

concerned, it is submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that in

the petition for quashing of the FIR, Pradeep has joined the petitioner

and has mentioned his address. Therefore, the address is available to

the police authorities. It was submitted by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State under instructions from the

Investigating Officer that on the address given in the petition, Pradeep

is not available. Counsels for the petitioners submit that they do not

have any other address of Pradeep.

7. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the totality of the

facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event of

arrest:-

(i) The petitioners be admitted to bail on their executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./SHO.