Delhi High Court
Sourav Kumar vs The State on 4 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2325/2017
Order reserved on: 24THNovember, 2017
Order pronounced on: 4th December, 2017
SOURAV KUMAR ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kishan Singh Chauhan and
Mr.A.K. Mishra, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anita Abraham, APP for State
with ASI Rudresh, P.S- Jaitpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.')
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR
No. 400/2017, under Section 323/341/365/394/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S.
Jaitpur, New-Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was
lodged by one Tinkoo aged 17 ½ years alleging that on 01.08.2017
at about 6.30 pm, when he was returning on his scooty bearing
registration No. DL-3SDE-5240 from his Uncle's shop, he was
stopped by two boys near the Lalu Kothi. They demanded money
and took Rs. 200 from him. They also demanded mobile from him
but he refused to give them his mobile phone. On this, they slapped
him and made him sit in the middle of the same scooty and one of
them kept the knife on his back and took him at the back of the
Baraat Ghar ground near Tent School where Sourav, Jeetu and
Bhola Jaat were already present. Sourav was holding a punch in
his hand and hit the complainant with the punch whereas Bhola
Jaat was holding knife and hit the Complainant on his head. Jeetu
and other boys hit him with blows and fits. People gathered at the
spot after hearing his screams after which they ran away. The case
was registered against the petitioner under Section 365/323/341/34
IPC. Hence, the present petition.
3. Mr. A. K. Mishra , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and
fabricated; that the complainant was pressurising and threatening
the petitioner to introduce him to the girl named Sapna and on
refusal to do so, he lodged the false complaint against the
petitioner; that the complainant has been calling on mobile of the
petitioner and even threatened him through messages, before the
present case was lodged; that the doctors opined the injury as
simple which cannot be said to be inflicted by a Punch or Knife;
the petitioner is pursuing his B.A 3rd year from DAV Centenary
College; that except the offence under Section 365 IPC, the other
offences are bailable in nature; that the FIR was registered on the
next day of the incident; that no custodial interrogation is required
as nothing has been recovered at his instance.
4. On the converse, the learned APP for the State contends that
benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner
as the offence is of serious nature.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the petitioner
herein is involved in a serious crime in association with the other
co-accused(s). It was alleged by the complainant that he was
stopped by the two unidentified persons, who threatened him and
snatched his money. From the perusal of the record, it transpires
that the petitioner was involved in the commission of crime. A
specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR whereby
it was mentioned that the petitioner was having a punch in his hand
and he has inflicted punch blow on the body of the complainant.
The MLC report supports the case of the complainant wherein the
doctor opined that the complainant has laceration of 5.1cm on his
scalp The MLC report supports the case of the complainant
wherein the doctor opined that the complainant has laceration of
5.1cm on his scalp. Record further reveals that investigation is at
earlier stage and recoveries are to be effected from the petitioner.
7. Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail in cases of
serious offences. The Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai
Sheth vs State Of Gujarat & Anr reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152
after analyzing the entire law has observed as under:-
"(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly
in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The
court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of
the accused in the case. The cases in which the
accused is implicated with the help of Sections
34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should
consider with even greater care and caution,
because overimplication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between
two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused
to free, fair and full investigation, and there should
be prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of
grant of bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the accused in entitled
to an order of bail."
8. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the present case as well as
the decision of the Apex Court above, this court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, petition stands
dismissed.
9. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits
of the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 4 , 2017
gr//
