Delhi High Court
Kapil Kumar Sharma vs State on 23 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : August 23, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 1617/2016
KAPIL KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.P. Luthra, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Hawa Singh, PS Madhu
Vihar, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J.
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.371/2016, under Sections 308/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Police Station Madhu Vihar, New Delhi,.
2. The prosecution's case is registered on the statement one Gauri.
It is alleged that the complainant and her sister Mithlesh @ Manisha
married in the same house and after few days of their marriage, her
husband and brother-in-law started torturing them on account of
dowry and started beating them. It is stated by the complainant that on
26.06.2016, her brother-in-law beat her sister and on the next morning
when her sister told the whole incident to her father-in-law namely
Mahesh Sharma, the father-in-law made a call to complainant's
maternal uncle (mama) to interfere in the matter. At about 8 PM, the
complainant's uncles namely Lakhan Lal, Kanhiya Lal, Balchand,
Bhojpal, alongwith maternal aunts (mami) - Kamlesh with Pushpa and
Durga and cousin Rahul visited the matrimonial home. It is alleged
that at about 10.15 pm, when her maternal uncle alongwith her
maternal side persons were standing outside the house, then her
husband alongwith his friends namely Kapil, Rahul Shukla and
Manish who were carrying rods and sticks in their hands came and
started giving beatings to her maternal uncle and other persons. When
the complainant tried to stop them, complainant's father-in-law and
mother-in-law told them to beat the complainant as well. Thereafter,
her husband, brother-in-law and their friends joined the quarrel and
gave beatings to them. PCR was called and the injured were taken to
LBS Hospital for treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
has filed a bail application before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2016. It is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present dispute is a
matrimonial one and the petitioner is neither a family member nor a
relative of the complainant's in-laws, but is merely a friend of main
accused Sumit and Amit. More so, no specific role has been assigned
to the petitioner except the general allegation to the effect that
complainant's husband and their friends - Kapil, Rahul Shukla and
Manish reached the spot with danda and hockey stick and they started
beating the complainant. It is further contended on behalf of the
petitioner that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant
were granted anticipatory bail on 30.06.2016. Likewise, the main
accused - Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Sunil Kumar have already
been released on regular bail vide order of learned Additional Sessions
Judge dated 13.07.2016 and 18.07.2016 respectively. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further contended the present dispute is a
matrimonial dispute wherein complainant and her relatives are on one
side and the main accused , i.e. husband and her in-laws on the other
side and there is every likelihood of amicable settlement between
them.
4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is neither a previous convict nor has ever been involved in
any other case and is of only 22 years of age. Apart from this, the
petitioner is required to appear in the examination. However, the
petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required.
Therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
5. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on
behalf of the State and submitted that for the purpose of recovering the
danda used in the incident, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is required.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
7. Indisputably, the other co-accused persons are on bail. It is also
an admitted fact that the present case pertains to matrimonial dispute,
inter-se the complainant and her in-laws. It is also a fact that no
specific injury is attributed to anybody in this case.
8. After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the case is
pending adjudication and the main accused, i.e. husband and brother-
in-law of the complainant alongwith father-in-law and mother-in-law
have already been granted bail in the present case. Therefore, this
Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Kapil Kumar Sharma
in the present case. Accordingly, the petitioner - Kapil Kumar Sharma
is directed to join the investigation as and when required, by notice in
writing, and in the event of arrest, the petitioner - Kapil Kumar
Sharma 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.
9. The petitioner is further directed not to tamper with the
evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses and not leave the
country without prior permission of the Court concerned.
10. 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application
is disposed of.
Dasti.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 23, 2016
pkb
