Delhi High Court
Dharmender vs State (Delhi Administration) on 1 March, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.03.2016
BAIL APPLN. 243/2016
DHARMENDER ..... Applicant
Through: Mr M.P.Sinha, Advocate with
Mr Sahil Aeron, Mr Sidhant Aeron,
Ms Kiran Dhatarwal and
Ms Meenakshi Chandel, Advocate.
Versus
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Ravi Nayak, APP.
SHO/Insp. Rajeev and SI Nafe Singh,
PS- Punjabi Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the applicant- Dharmender
seeking regular bail in FIR No.1282/2015 under Section 307 IPC registered
at Police Station- Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
2. Mr Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, invites
my attention to the circumstance that the injury suffered by the complainant
in the subject FIR has been opined to be simple in nature.
3. Mr Sinha would then urge that the subject FIR is the consequence of a
planned conspiracy against the applicant, inasmuch as, no specifics, insofar
as the time of the commission of the offence, is stated in the FIR which also
suffers from being bereft of all necessary material.
4. It is then urged by Mr Sinha that the applicant is innocent and was in
fact gheraoed by the complainant and six other individuals who were
attempting to cause bodily injury and harm to the petitioner.
5. Lastly it is urged on behalf of the applicant that as he was scared for
his life and limb, he omitted to register a cross-FIR against the complainant
in the subject FIR and against others who allegedly assaulted him physically.
6. On the contrary it has been urged by Mr Nayak, learned APP
appearing on behalf of the police that the allegations levelled against the
applicant are of serious nature, inasmuch as, he is alleged to have attacked
the complainant with a broken whiskey quarter-bottle after pre-meditation as
a consequence of which injuries were suffered by the latter on a vital part of
his body, namely, the throat/front side of the neck. It is also urged on behalf
of the police that there is a distinct possibility of the applicant influencing or
threatening prosecution witnesses including the complainant in the event he
is enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage Mr Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant would urge that the latter is a poor rehri wala and consequently the
submissions made on behalf of the police are not tenable.
8. In the present case it is observed that the applicant does not deny his
presence at the place where the offence was allegedly committed at the
relevant time. It is also admitted position that the MLC qua the complainant
opines that the complainant suffered a stab injury to the left side of his neck
and observed to have lacerated wounds of 10 to 15cm in size, as per the
MLC of the same day.
9. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant that in fact he was a
victim of an assault orchestrated by the complainant in the subject FIR is not
borne out by any material, inasmuch as, the applicant did not approach the
police in this behalf with a complaint at any stage. The submission that he
has been a victim of a planned conspiracy is also prima facie untenable as
the applicant has not alleged any previous enmity between him and the
complainant in the subject FIR. The submission that the FIR is deficient in
material particulars including the time when the complainant first intervened
in the dispute between the applicant and certain other individuals, in my
view is not material, inasmuch as, the time of the commission of the alleged
offence has been clearly mentioned in the FIR as 9.15p.m. on 10.12.2015.
The statement of Rahul, the complainant's brother, who escorted him to
Maharaja Agarsen Hospital on his motorcycle, recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., prima facie corroborates this circumstance.
10. Although the investigation into the commission of the alleged offence
is nearing completion and it has been stated on behalf of the IO in the subject
FIR that a charge-sheet would be filed within a period of two weeks from
today, in my view the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this
stage for the reason that the charges against him are serious in nature and
there is a distinct possibility of his threatening the complainant and other
material witnesses.
11. Consequently, the present application is dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 01, 2016
mk
