Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Dass vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 July, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : July 12, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 1138/2016
ASHOK KUMAR DASS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kulbhushan Mehta, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Dinesh Kumar, Police
Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 12.07.2016
P.S. TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner
is seeking bail in FIR No. 1017/2015 under Section
452/308/427/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nihal
Vihar, Delhi.
2. The prosecution case is that on receipt of DD No.29A dated
13.10.2015, when the Investigating Officer reached at the residence of
complainant, he found the broken glass pieces of office and swift car
duly scattered but the complainant was not present. Upon receipt of
another information that one Pradeep Kumar son of Mahabir has been
admitted in Satya Bhama Hospital on MLC No.1126/15, ASI reached
the hospital and collected the MLC, on which the doctor had opined
h/o physical assault by a group of people with lathi, sword, sharp
object, multiple blunt injury on chest, abdomen and head. Statement of
the complainant was recorded. The complainant has alleged that he
and Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji had lent money to one Lala and the
property documents had been kept by Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji as
security. Whenever he asked for the documents, Bhagwan Singh used
to abuse him. As per the complainant, two days before the incident, he
had visited Bhagwan Signh @ Fauji's house where his wife Devenderi
Devi was present and abused him and threatened to implicate him in a
false case.
3. It is further stated that on 13.10.2015 at about 7.15 PM when
the complainant was counting cash at his office counter, Bhagwan
Singh @ Fauji alongwith K.P. Singh, Pradeep Tyagi and the applicant
- Ashok Kumar Dass entered in his office carrying iron rods and
sword in their hands and broke office window glasses and started
beating him with rod, kicks and fists. Bhagwan Singh snatched
Rs.35,000/-. It is also alleged that all the accused persons threatened to
kill him and while leaving they broke the glasses of the swift car.
Accordingly, the present FIR was registered on the statement of the
complainant and investigation was started.
4. During investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested on
14.10.2015 and the other accused persons surrendered themselves
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court on
16.12.2015 and 21.12.2015. After completion of the investigation, the
prosecution has filed the charge sheet on 02.01.2016. It is further
stated that all the accused persons are in judicial custody since the date
of their arrest.
5. Mr. Kulbhushan Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the present FIR is a counter blast to the FIR No.
1012/2015 which was registered one day prior thereto, i.e., on
12.10.2015 under Section 509 of IPC against the complainant -
Pradeep Kumar @ Sonu on the basis of the complaint made by Smt.
Devendri wife of Bhagwan Singh and sister of K.P. Singh, as the
complainant of the present FIR abused them and made sexual remarks
while giving threats to Smt. Devendri on 11.10.2015. Thereafter
statement of Devendri under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended that the complainant had himself damaged
his car and the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case.
6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
applicant is in custody since 14.10.2015 and the investigation of the
case is complete and the prosecution has filed the charge sheet under
Section 308/452/427/506/34 of IPC. Lastly, it is contended that the
applicant/petitioner belongs to service class, having a meager amount
of earning just to sustain himself and his family and he is the only
bread earner of his family comprising of his wife and school going
children of tender age. Apart from this, learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended that the applicant/petitioner has deep root
in the society with good reputation and shall not flee away from
administration of justice. As the trial of the case may take considerable
time and no purpose shall be served in keeping the applicant behind
bar, therefore, the applicant ought to be released on bail.
7. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State submitted that the CD of the CCTV footage has been taken into
police possession which shows that the accused persons were beating
the complainant and breaking the office glasses and that of
complainant's swift car. The CD and the DVR of the CCTV camera
installed in the office of complainant has been sent to FSL Rohini for
expert opinion on 02.12.2015 and the result of which is still awaited. It
is further submitted that out of 20 witnesses, the prosecution has
already examined five witnesses and the material / public witnesses
are yet to be examined. The State has also raised apprehension of
tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, in case the
applicant is released on bail. Therefore, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State contended that the applicant ought not be
granted bail in this case.
8. The submissions and counter submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State have been heard and this Court has also
perused the material placed on record.
9. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as
the status report filed on record, the admitted facts of the case are that
the petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2015; charge sheet in this case
has been filed and therefore, the petitioner is no more required for
further investigation; the applicant/petitioner is the only earning
member of his family and has wife and kids of tender age and the fact
the trial of the case may also take time to conclude.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Ashok Kumar Dass in the
present case subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
11. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
12. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application stands
disposed of. Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
JULY 12, 2016
pkb
