Sushil Kumar Bhati & Anr vs State & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 6986 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              Date of hearing and Order : November 18, 2016

+       BAIL APPLN. 2338/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.17864/2016 (Interim relief)
        SUSHIL KUMAR BHATI & ANR
                                                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Ms. Sarita Bhatia,
                                  Mr. Sandeep Singh, Ms. Nasima, Ms.
                                  Shailja Jha, Advocates

                            versus

        STATE & ANR
                                                                 ..... Respondent
                            Through:     Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                         Inspector C.B. Singh, Sub-Inspector
                                         Brij Mohan, Police Station M.S. Park,
                                         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.0123/2016, Police Station M.S. Park,

under Sections 498A/406/353/506/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has filed an application for seeking anticipatory

bail before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was

dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after

dismissal of the bail application by the trial court on 16.08.2016, he

approached this court on 8th November 2016 for seeking anticipatory

bail, however the same was withdrawn due to technical fault and

thereafter the present application was filed on 10.11.2016, which came

up for hearing before this court on 17.11.2016. It is further argued by

learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of the case, the

police had issued notice under Section 41 of Cr. P.C. for joining the

investigation and the petitioners had joined the investigation twice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

allegations leveled by the complainant are false, frivolous, obnoxious

and are leveled with a malafide intention to misuse the process of law.

It is further contended that the allegation and incident pertains to the

year 2012 and FIR of the case was registered in the year 2016 and in

the nature of allegation no woman would delay in lodging the FIR for

four years. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations

against the petitioner and moreover, the applicants have been served

the notice under Section 41 of Cr. P.C. and had already joined the

investigation, therefore there is no requirement of custodial

interrogations.

5. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on

behalf of the State.

6. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner

as well as having gone through the contents of the petition and the

impugned order, it is an admitted fact that the FIR of this case was

registered on 31.03.2016, and the anticipatory bail application of the

petitioner was rejected by the court below vide order dated

16.08.2016.

7. It is also an admitted fact that after registration of the case, the

police had issued notice under Section 41 of Cr. P.C. for joining the

investigation and the petitioners had also joined the investigation

twice, but thereafter, they did not appear before investigation. As a

result, the investigating officer had filed an application before the

court below for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the

petitioner and on the same date, the trial court, without issuance of any

warrants, straightaway issued process to initiate proceedings against

the petitioner under Section 82 of Cr. P.C.

8. This court observes that the police itself has proceeded under

Section 41 of Cr. P.C. and did not wish to arrest the petitioner in this

case. It is only on account of non-joining of investigation, the police

moved the trial court for issuance of non-bailable warrants. But the

trial court without issuing non-bailable warrants, straightaway

proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 82 of Cr. P.C.

9. 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 are required for

custodial interrogation or that the petitioners have tried to tamper with

the evidence. However, it is contended on behalf of the State the

petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present

case, petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when

directed by the investigating officer and in the event of arrest, the

petitioners - Sushil Kumar Bhati and Dayanand Bhati be released on

bail subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-

with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application

is disposed of. Consequentially, Crl.M.A. No.17864/2016 seeking

interim relief is rendered infructuous and disposed of as such.

Dasti.

P.S.TEJI, J NOVEMBER 18, 2016 pkb