Delhi High Court
Dalbir Singh Dagar & Ors vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order : April 19, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 608/2016
DALBIR SINGH DAGAR & ORS
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr.Sahil Malik,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State with
Sub-Inspector Yakub Khan, Police
Station Kapashera, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No.70/2016, Police Station Kapashera, under
Sections 452/325/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in a case, wherein they
have been alleged to have entered into the house of the complainant -
Rajesh Dagar by breaking open the door of the house and thereafter,
throwing the complainant on the road from the roof of the house.
3. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of Mr.
Rajesh Dagar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who stated
that on 27.02.2016 at about 10 PM, he was standing outside his home
and one Tinku Dagar, his neighbour was consuming liquor at the
balcony of his home. It is further alleged that the said Tinku started
abusing the complainant, whereupon the complainant also abused
back. Thereafter, Tinku Dagar, his brother Lala and Dalbir came
downstairs to beat him. The complainant went inside his house and
locked from inside. It is alleged that the petitioners hit the door of his
home from their legs while using filthy language. The petitioners were
tried to calm down by the complainant's nephew Amit and Parveen
with the help of neighbours. It is alleged that after some time, the
petitioners break open the lock of his house and entered therein and
started misbehaving with the wife of complainant and the wife of his
nephew. It is alleged that Tinku Dagar has taken the DVR of the
CCTV installed at his house. Thereafter, the complainant went to the
roof of his home, where also the petitioners reached and after picking
the complainant they threw him from the roof of his home and due to
which he suffered several injuries. Investigation of the case started and
during investigation it was found that the lock of the door was broken
up.
4. The cross FIR No.71/2016 under Section 451/354A/509 of IPC
was also registered at the instance of one Smt. Kamlesh Dagar wife of
petitioner No.1 at the same Police Station, in which it is alleged that
on 27.02.2016 at about 9.50 PM, Rajesh Dagar after consuming liquor
came to her house and started misbehaving with her and also tried to
outrage her modesty. He caught hold of her hand and when she asked
him not to behave in such manner, he went on giving filthy abuses. On
raising alarm, he ran away.
5. Mr. R.S. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the petitioners and the complainant belong to same family and
have free entry into the houses of each other and when the
complainant was trying to outrage the modesty of the wife of
petitioner No.2, Smt. Kamlesh Dagar made a PCR Call, whereafter the
complainant of the FIR fled away. A DD in respect thereof was also
recorded vide DD No.33A at 10.37 PM. Police reached at the spot, the
neighbours also gathered at the spot and they all went to the house of
the complainant alongwith the police and the wife of the complainant
did not tell the whereabouts of her husband and told that he is not at
home. Thereafter, at 11.00 PM the police party returned back to the
Police Station and everybody including the petitioners returned to
their houses, presuming that the complainant might be under the
influence of liquor and must be hiding himself.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in the
next morning, the petitioners came to know that while fleeing from the
scene of occurrence the complainant jumped from the height and
sustained some injuries in his leg and manipulated the incident of his
injury and falsely attributed the same to the petitioners and others. The
complainant got himself admitted in a private hospital and
manipulated the MLC with alleged history of assault. It is further
contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant discharged
from the hospital and there is no danger to his life.
7. On merits, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the
petitioner No.1 is working in Delhi Police as Head Constable and is a
heart patient. It is further contended that the petitioner No.1 is also
suffering from post polio paralysis of right lower limb and due to
which he is having 42% physical disability. It is further contended that
the petitioner No.1 was not even present at the time of incident.
8. Regarding petitioner Nos.2 and 3, it is contended that they have
clean antecedents and have never involved themselves in any criminal
activities and they were also not present at the house at the time of
incidents and they have been falsely involved in the present case due
to cross case registered against them.
9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
petitioners have already joined the investigation of the case. It is
further contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is nothing to
be recovered from or at the instance of the petitioners and no purpose
will be served in sending the petitioners in custody. Learned counsel
for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr., V(2014)
SLT 582.
10. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners. However, on instructions from Sub-Inspector Yakub
Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted
that the petitioners have joined the investigation and during
interrogation, the petitioners have denied for taking out the CCTV
DVR from the home of complainant and the same need to be
recovered from the petitioners.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and gone through the contents of the petition as well as material
placed on record.
12. The present bail application first came up for hearing before this
court on 18th March 2016, when this court had directed the petitioners
to join the investigation and to not to tamper with the evidence and
also to not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
13. After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the
petitioners have joined the investigation and there is no averment
made on behalf of the State that the petitioners have not cooperated
the investigation or that the petitioners have tried to tamper with the
evidence. However, the case is pending adjudication.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, the order dated 18.03.2016 vide which the petitioners were
granted anticipatory bail, is made absolute. Accordingly, it is ordered
that in the event of arrest, the petitioners - Dalbir Singh Dagar, Tinku
Dagar and Lala be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
15. The petitioners are directed not to tamper with the evidence, not
to influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court concerned.
16. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that
anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on
the merits of the case during trial.
17. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application
is disposed of.
Dasti.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2016
pkb
