Subhash Chand vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 9075 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 07, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1352/2015
      SUBHASH CHAND                                   ..... Petitioner
                  Through:            Mr.Ankush Narang, Advocate.

                         versus

      STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:           Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                      Inspector Amit, Police Station Kotla
                                      Mubarakpur, Delhi.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
                         JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 438 of IPC seeking

anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No.613/2015 under

Sections 279/341/307/506/323/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station

Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.

2. The present case is registered on the statement of complainant -

Rishi Kumar stating that on 24.05.2015, an unattended handcart was

parked in front of the main gate of complainant's house, and the

complainant asked his helper - Mukesh to move the cart away from

the gate. While moving the cart away, it hit the scooter bearing

No.DDK-4467 belonging to Rohan, who was alleged to be riding

rashly. He parked the scooter in the middle of the road and slapped

Mukesh 10-12 times, used abusive language and threatened him that

he will kill him. It is alleged further that later on, when complainant

was walking in the lane, co-accused Rohan and Choti came to him

and told him that their father is calling him and the complainant went

alongwith them. After few minutes of walk, the complainant saw

Ashok Chaudhary-father of Rohan alongwith his relatives namely

Subhash, Neeraj, Sanjay accompanied with Har Gulal standing.

Thereafter, the complainant refused to go forward due to fear but

Rohan and Choti dragged him in front of House No.58, Bapu Park. It

is also alleged that Har Gulal had abused the complainant and

threatened to kill him and his family. It is also alleged that Rohan and

Choti held both of the hands of Rishi while Neeraj, Subash and Ashok

punched and kicked the complainant. During the scuffle, it is alleged

that Subhash hit the complainant's head with a lathi and thereafter

accused Hargulal took the lathi and hit the complainant's head with it,

which led to registration of the present case.

3. Mr. Ankush Narang, counsel for the petitioner contended that

on a bare perusal of the MLC of the complainant, the case under

Section 307 is not made out qua the petitioner and at best the case

under Section 323 of IPC is made out, which is a bailable offence. It

is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the other co-

accused have already been granted anticipatory bail in the present

case by the Sessions Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in compliance

of order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner

had already joined the investigation in the present case twice, during

the pendency of the anticipatory bail application. To rebut the

prosecution story, counsel for the petitioner has also narrated a

different version of the incident, which however is not the subject

matter of the present bail petition and can only be decided while

leading cogent evidence during trial of the case.

5. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner

has never misused the liberty granted by the Sessions Court and since

the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is a law abiding

and peace loving citizen of the country, has deep roots in the society,

and has a family to support and as such there are no chances of his

absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.

6. On 13th July 2015, when the present bail application came up

for hearing before this Court, the petitioner was directed to appear

before the Investigating Officer on 14th July 2015 at 4.00 PM and

thereafter, as and when called and subject to petitioner joining the

investigation, the petitioner was granted interim protection in this

case.

7. Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on

behalf of the State and submitted a status report. As per status report,

the complainant as well as injured - Mukesh Kumar were medically

examined and the doctor has opined the nature of injury as SIMPLE.

It is also stated in the status report that except the petitioner, all other

accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions

Court. Regarding joining the investigation of the case, it is reported

that the petitioner has also joined the investigation five times and

during investigation, it is stated by the petitioner that he did not hit the

complainant with lathi. However, the lathi (stick) is yet to be

recovered. At last, it is reported that the petitioner is found to be

previously involved in case registered as FIR No. 162/13 under

Section 188 of IPC, Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.

8. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides

and also perused the impugned order and the material placed on

record.

9. Considering the fact that in compliance of order dated

10.06.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner has joined the

investigation; the fact that the other co-accused have already been

granted anticipatory bail in the present case; the nature of injury being

simple in nature as opined by the doctor and the fact that the lathi

(stick) is yet to be recovered in this case, this Court is of the opinion

that the interim protection given to the petitioner vide order dated

13.07.2015 is made absolute. Consequently, it is ordered that in the

event of arrest of the petitioner - Subhash Chand, he be admitted to

bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two

sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

Additionally, the petitioner is directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required, he shall not tamper with

the evidence, he shall not influence the prosecution witnesses and

shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

10. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

11. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 07, 2015 pkb