Delhi High Court
Akbar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 October, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.10.2015
BAIL APPLN. 2111/2015, CRL.M.(BAIL) 7877/2015 & CRL.M.A.
14646/2015
AKBAR ..... Applicant
Through: Mr Jaspreet S.Rai and Mr Ishan
Rohan, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajat Katyal, APP with SI
Rajender Singh, PS- Nand Nagri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.890/2015
under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station- Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. Mr Jaspreet S. Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant, would urge that the MLC of the complainant in the subject FIR
clearly belies his statement to the police that the applicant had assaulted him
with a knife on his neck. He relies upon page 27 of the present application in
this behalf . Mr Rai would then urge that the alleged incident took place
around 8 p.m. However, the MLC of the complainant clearly reveals that the
latter was taken to hospital only at 12.20 a.m., i.e., more than four hours after
the alleged incident. Mr Rai would also urge that the applicant has been
falsely implicated and he had no motive to assault the complainant and, on
the contrary, the complainant in the subject FIR against whom the applicant
had registered a cross-FIR was the one who summoned him to the spot
where the alleged offence is stated to have been committed on account of his
resentment at losing clients to the applicant. It is further urged on behalf of
the applicant that the latter has filed an RTI application with the Police
Commissioner seeking the call detail record of the applicant in order to
establish that the subject FIR is a consequence of personal enmity on account
of business rivalry.
3. Mr Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, admits
that the latter had previous involvement but hastens to clarify that he has not
been convicted in any of those cases.
4. On the contrary, Mr Rajat Katyal, learned APP appearing on behalf of
the Police, states that the complainant in the subject FIR is in judicial
custody in the FIR registered by the present applicant against him. Mr Katyal
would then urge that in view of the gravity of the offence and the
involvement of the applicant in other criminal cases, it would not be just, fair
and appropriate to admit him on anticipatory bail at this stage.
5. In the present case it is observed that the complainant and the
applicant operate rival businesses. It is further noticed that the complainant
invited the applicant to discuss how to resolve their inter se disputes which
were detrimental to the complainant's business interest. However, the FIR at
page No.27 reads as under:-
"...............He said that do you not know that
I am Akbar and started abusing me and pecking
a fight during which it took out a long knife
from the motorcycle boot and attacked me in
fury with the intention to cause my death to
which I escaped he inflicted second attack on
my chest....."
6. A perusal of the above prima facie demonstrates that it was the
applicant who struck the first blow and drew first blood. It also cannot be
lost sight of that the applicant has had other cases registered against him and
is a bad character of the area.
7. Since Mr Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
assails the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge,
Shahdara District, Delhi rejecting the applicant's petition for anticipatory
bail, it becomes necessary for me to comment on it. The District and
Sessions Judge relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anwari
Begum v. Sher Mohammad, 2005 AIR (SC) 3530 and Gobarbhai
Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, 2008 AIR (SC) 1134 and applying
them to the facts and circumstances of the application for anticipatory bail
filed on behalf of the applicant, came to a decision that the application could
not be granted at this stage.
8. I see no reason to disagree with the order passed by the District and
Sessions Judge.
9. In view of the nature of the accusations against the applicant and the
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction and given his
antecedents, in my view, the present is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
Dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 05, 2015
mk
