Delhi High Court
Vikas Dagar vs State Through Public Prosecutor on 3 July, 2015
Author: Ashutoshkumar
$~16 & 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 367/2015
Date of decision: 03.07.2015
VIKAS DAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sahil Sheoran, Advocate.
versus
STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC.
Insp.R.K.Meena, DIU/SW Distt.
+ BAIL APPLN. 508/2015
RAO SATVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC.
Insp.R.K.Meena, DIU/SW Distt.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORDER
% 03.07.2015
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in FIR
No.459/2014 which initially was registered under Section 307 and
other allied sections of IPC read with Section 23 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act. Later, with the death of one of the
accused, Section 302 was added.
2. The FIR in question was lodged by a Head Constable Bhoj Raj
alleging that while he was on duty on 2.8.2014, he was informed by
somebody that a tempo, from which foul smell was emanating, was
going somewhere. The tempo was stopped and it was found that dead
carcasses of animals were kept in the tempo. The persons occupying
the vehicle disclosed that they were working for the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and as part of their duty, they had picked up dead
animals to be thrown at proper place. The further allegation in the first
information report is that the news about the dead animals being
transported was disseminated to the local villagers, whereupon many
villagers came and tried to manhandle workers of the MCD. When
they were prevented from indulging in such act of violence, they grew
even more violent and attacked the persons occupying the vehicle with
iron rods and blunt weapon. Extra police force also was requisitioned
but to no avail. Some of the persons got seriously injured. Many
persons were named in the aforesaid FIR including the petitioners in
the aforementioned applications.
3. Some of the persons named in the FIR were arrested.
4. The petitioners were not arrested at the spot.
5. A complaint came to be lodged by one of the petitioners namely
Rao Satvir Singh against the second investigating officer of the case
who tried to extract money from the accused persons. The aforesaid
complaint was filed after submission of chargesheet which showed the
petitioners as absconders. On such complaint, a case was instituted by
the CBI against the erring police officials.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the cases of the
petitioners are different from those who are in custody and whose bail
applications have been rejected. The accused persons who are in
custody were the ones who were arrested at the spot.
7. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners.
Rather, there is general and omnibus allegation against them of
inciting the mob for committing arson and also to kill the persons
sitting in the tempo vehicle. The fact that the petitioners could not be
arrested at the spot, entitles them to say that their names were
arraigned on the instigation of someone else. If so many persons
named in the FIR were arrested at the spot, there was no reason for the
police authorities to have allowed the petitioners a safe passage.
8. The order impugned reflects that the abscondance of the
petitioners weighed heavily against them. However, the petitioners
were granted interim protection by a Bench of this Court by order
dated 5.5.2015 with stringent conditions namely that they will make
themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the
investigating agency and that they will positively restrain themselves
from making any inducement or threat to the persons acquainted with
the facts of the case so that they are not dissuaded from disclosing
such facts to the Court or other authority whenever required. They are
also saddled with the condition of not leaving the territorial bounds of
National Capital Territory without the prior permission of the Court.
9. Considering the facts that no specific role has been attributed to
the petitioners; they have only been alleged to have incited the mob
which committed the act of arson, which unfortunately led to the death
of one of the victims and the fact that a complaint was lodged by one
of the petitioners, though after filing of the chargesheet, against the
investigating officer of this case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioners on anticipatory bail subject to the same terms and
conditions which were imposed by order dated 5.5.2015.
10. Mr.Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing counsel vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail on the ground of seriousness of the charge
and the custody of other accused persons.
11. This Court is conscious of the fact that some of the accused
persons have been chargesheeted and are in custody. Nonetheless
these petitioners, though named in the FIR were not arrested on the
spot and were granted the interim protection by this Court. The interim
order dated 5.5.2015 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute,
subject to the conditions laid down in the order dated 5.5.2015.
12. The petitioners in the event of arrest will be released on their
furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO of the
concerned police station.
13. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
JULY 03, 2015
k
