Delhi High Court
Girijesh Yadav @ Lallu vs The State on 22 February, 2016
Author: P. S. Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : 22nd February 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 212/2016
GIRIJESH YADAV @ LALLU
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kapil Singhal, Advocate
versus
THE STATE
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Mr. Amit Chadha,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State with ASI D.K. Tyagi, Police
Station Sonia Vihar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
%
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner
seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No. 0589/2015
under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police
Station Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. The prosecution story as enumerated from the present FIR is
that one Lallu Prasad had submitted that on 11.11.2015 at about 10.30
PM, he was celebrating the festival of Diwali alongwith his children
and he heard a noise of neighbours. He alongwith other neighbours
came out of the house and saw that his neighbour - Grijesh Kumar @
Lallu (petitioner herein) alongwith Ballu Yadav, Ram Milan Yadav
and Ram Dev Shukla were beating all the persons living in the locality
by pulling them out of their houses and caused injuries on their head
and other parts of body by dandas. They were also saying that "Jisne
bhi hamari Din Mein shikayat karke hamko band karaya tha ham gali
mein rahne walon ko nahi chhodenge." During this incident one
Rajesh got injured.
3. Mr. Kapil Singhal, counsel for the petitioner contended that
there was only one incident of 11.11.2015 , which is registered vide
FIR No. 0594/2015 dated 14.11.2015. However, the present FIR gives
the different version of the incident.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact on
11.11.2015, Rajesh who is the injured in the FIR in the present case
stopped one Uma Shankar Dubey who is the brother-in-law/sala of
tenant of the applicant and went to the house of the applicant to meet
his brother in-law (jija), there he saw that a quarrel has taken place of
Ram Milan (father of petitioner) with some people and the injured
Rajesh abused Uma Shankar and stopped Uma Shankar by assuming
that Uma Shankar is the brother-in-law of Ram Milan and in the
meanwhile, Ajay Bal Kishan, Manoj, Soni and Prem gave filthiest
abuses and mercilessly beaten Uma Shanker with wooden sticks and
fist blows and then he was taken to Jag Pravesh Hospital and MLC
No.9282 was prepared by the doctors and thereafter the FIR No.
594/2015 under Section 323/341/506/34 of IPC was registered on
14.11.2015.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the co-accused
- Ram Milan Yadav and Dinesh Yadav @ Ballu Yadav have been
granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
19.11.2015 and the interim bail was also granted to co-accused Ram
Dev Shukla on 21.11.2015, who was released on anticipatory bail on
26.11.2015. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that all
the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital on the
same day by giving medical aid, as the injured persons had received
simple injuries.
6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner
is about 28 years of age and is doing job of Conductor in DTC Bus
and the offence alleged under Section 308 of IPC is not made out
against the petitioner, as the injured persons were discharged on the
same day from hospital after getting medical aid. In furtherance, it is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that nothing incriminating is to
be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. At last, counsel for
the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is ready to join the
investigation as and when directed by this Court.
7. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that there are cross-FIRs between the complainant side and
the applicant and his co-accused and in both the FIRs, the parties
sustained injuries and the offence is registered under Section 308 of
IPC, and the petitioner is required for investigation to unearth the
truth.
8. I have heard the submissions of counsel appearing on behalf of
both the sides and gone through the material placed on record.
9. After careful scrutiny of the case, this Court observes that both
the complainant and the applicant are neighbour and a fight took place
between them and both the parties sustained injuries. This Court also
observes that all the injured were discharged on the same day and
suffered simple injuries. It is also an admitted case that recovery has
already been affected from the co-accused - Dinesh Yadav @ Ballu
Yadav and he has already been admitted to bail. Even the co-accused
Ramdev Shukla has been granted anticipatory bail in the present case.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations and the facts and
circumstances of the present case; the fact that the injured have
sustained simple injuries and they were discharged on the same day;
other co-accused have already been granted bail and the fact that the
applicant is doing the job of a conductor in DTC Bus and is of 28
years old, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner - Grijesh Yadav @ Lallu. Accordingly, the petitioner -
Grijesh yadav @ Lallu is directed to appear before the Investigating
Officer of this case as and when required by notice in writing and
cooperate in the investigation and in the event of arrest, the petitioner
- Grijesh yadav @ Lallu be released on bail subject to his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
11. The petitioner is further directed not to tamper with the
evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses and not to leave
the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.
12. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove, shall
not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
13. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application
is disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2016
pkb
