Arun Saluja vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9285 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Judgment delivered on : December 14, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2245/2015
      ARUN SALUJA                                       ..... Petitioner
                         Through     Mr.Rakesh Mukhija & Mr.K.K.
                                     Mukhija, Advocates

                         versus

      STATE                                              ..... Respondent
                         Through     Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
                                     Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                     Inspector O.P. Mandal, Police Station
                                     Pahar Ganj.
                                     Mr.Balwant Sud, Advocate for the
                                     complainant.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C.

seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under FIR No.610/2015

under Sections 323/341/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at

Police Station Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.

2. The present case is an outcome of a complaint lodged by Smt.

Sunita Rani, in which she had levelled the allegation of molestation,

snatching and abusing on the petitioner alongwith his father Gulshan

Lal Saluja. The injuries caused to the complainant in her MLC was

opined to be grievous and the sections of IPC in FIR were amended

and Sections 509/354 of IPC were also added in this case.

3. Upon filing an application on 9th October 2015, by both the

accused persons, they were granted anticipated bail till 13.10.2015

and they were directed to join the investigation. Both the accused

joined the investigation on 12th October 2015. On 13th October 2015,

the Trial Court admitted the co-accused - Gulshan Lal Saluja on bail

but the petitioners bail was rejected vide order dated 13th October

2015, on the ground that he had snatched the purse and had also hit on

the chest of the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present petition

seeking bail.

5. Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the complainant has roped the petitioner in a

false case, however the actual cause of dispute is of a civil nature and

also submitted his version of the case. Mr. Balwant Singh, husband of

the complainant started harassing the family of the petitioner on one

pretext or the other. As per counsel for the petitioner, on 26th August

2015, the son of the complainant entered in the shop of the petitioner

and started abusing and fighting with the petitioner and his father and

upon seeing this, the people gathered outside the shop of the

petitioner. As per petitioner, complainant and her son threatened the

petitioner and his father of dire consequences and in support of this,

the petitioner has produced audio recording made at that point of time

through mobile phone. Thereafter, it was father of the petitioner who

made a call to the police control room at 100 number and in counter

blast, the complainant made a complaint to police officials, based on

which the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and his

father on 11th September 2015.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no

specific allegation in the FIR at the first instance, that the petitioner

had snatched her purse or tried to outrage her modesty and it is only

after recording of her statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C., and on

the basis of subsequent development in the statement of the

complainant, which is apparently false and an afterthought and

contrary to her earlier statement, the offence punishable under Section

354 IPC has been inserted. It is also contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the offences as made out in the FIR are bailable but in

order to attract the provisions of non-bailable offence, the

complainant has levelled the allegations of harming her modesty. In

response to the aforesaid submission, counsel for the petitioner

referred the CCTV footage and audio recording, which demonstrate

that the version of the complainant is false and the petitioner and his

father are being roped into a false case.

7. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has

already joined the investigation during the preliminary inquiry on

31.08.2015, 05.09.2015 and 09.09.2015 and has extended full

cooperation for facilitation of the investigation. Lastly, it is contended

that the petitioner is just about 33 years old and having a young child

of one year and has deep roots in the society and there is no

apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution

evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has instructions

to undertake that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation as

and when required, therefore the petitioner ought to be granted bail in

this case.

8. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the decisions reported in the following judgments:"

a) Parveen Bansal & Ors v. The State of Delhi, 2007 (2) JCC 1415;

b) Rajneesh Kumar Singhal v. State, 89 (2001) DLT 511 (FB);

c) Parminder Singh & Another v. The State & Anr., 2002 (1) JCC 312;

d) Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State, 141 (2007) DLT 94;

             e)     Roop Madan v. State, 1997 AD (Cr.) DHC 195;

             f)     M/s. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Others
                    v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr, 2005 (3) JCC
                    1583;

             g)     Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia & Anr v.
                    Sambharijao Chandrohrao Angre & Anr, 1988
                    SCC (Cri.) 234;

             h)     Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000
                    (2) JCC Delhi 302;
             i)     Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, 1980
                    Cr.LJ 1125; and
             j)     Court on its own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi),
                    2004 (1) JCC 308 (Delhi)

9. On 16th October 2015, when the present petition came up for

hearing before this Court, counsel for the complainant submitted that

the police is mixed up with the petitioner/accused and after

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had

granted interim protection to the petitioner and directed him to join

the investigation as and when required and to not tamper with the

evidence.

10. Upon notice, Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the

petitioner and has filed a status report in the matter, in which it is

averred that the doctor has opined on the result of MLC of the

complainant - Sunita Rani that the injuries on her body are grievous

and the complainant has supported her allegations in her statement

under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. It is further stated that both the accused

have joined the investigation of the case and co-accused Gulshan Lal

Saluja has been granted bail vide order dated 13th October 2015.

11. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and have gone through the Status Report filed on behalf of

the State and the material placed on record.

12. After careful consideration of the submissions and counter

submissions made by both the sides, this court observes that the

CCTV footage of the incident, as procured from Hotel Northern

Place, the alleged purse is not visible and from the analysis of audio

compact disc, it is heard that the son of the complainant was

threatening and abusing the petitioner and his father and in the FIR,

there was no allegation or averment of the complainant that the

petitioner had snatched her purse and tried to outrage her modesty, at

the first instance.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact

that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has not

misused the concession of anticipatory bail and cooperated in the

investigation of this case, this court deems it appropriate to agree with

the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16th

October 2015. Accordingly, the order dated 16th October 2015 is

made absolute and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner - Arun Saluja, he be admitted to bail on furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Petitioner is

directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

required. The petitioner is also directed not to tamper with the

evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses, and shall not

leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court.

14. Before parting with the aforesaid decision, it is made clear that

anything observed in this order shall not have any bearing on the

merits of the case during trial.

15. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

16. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 14, 2015 pkb