Delhi High Court
Wajid Khan vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 05th December, 2017
Order pronounced on 07th December, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 2264/2017
WAJID KHAN ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmad and Ms. Charu Dalal,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Kr. Sharma, APP for State with
SI Dinesh Kumar, PS: Jamia Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By this present application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks Anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 610/2017 under
Section 323/365/342/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein
referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station - Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. The brief and necessary facts to dispose of the present petition is
that on 05.09.2017 around 4 p.m. a PCR call regarding kidnapping
of a teacher from Government School, Noor Nagar, Delhi was
received at Police Station - Jamia Nagar and the same was
entrusted to ASI Prakash Chand, who reached at the spot and found
the complainant has already went to the police station; that ASI
Prakash Chand returned to police station and met the complainant,
who informed him that he has sustained injuries; medical
examination of the complainant was conducted; that complainant
tendered a written complaint against the petitioner alleging that on
05.09.2017 at about 4:00 p.m., petitioner called him at main gate of
the school where the petitioner along with his associates grappled
on his face and forcibly pulled him inside the car and gave beating
with fists and kicks; that when the car stopped at Jamia Chowk, he
managed to escape from the car and ran towards police station.
3. During investigation the statement of eye-witness has been
recorded, who stated that on 05.09.2017 around 4-4:15 PM accused
Wajid Khan along with his brothers and two other persons
forcefully pulled the complainant in his white colour fortuner car.
They ran towards Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, he tried to stop them
but they fled away. He called 100 number and informed the police.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a
social worker and presently the councillor of his area. He has been
falsely implicated in this case and in fact the petitioner had
received a call from a person namely Ikram stating that the
complainant is not allowing him to enter in the school and when
this person gave his phone to the complainant to talk to the
petitioner then the complainant misbehaved with him on the phone.
A complaint was also made by him to the Deputy Director of
Education in this regard. On 05.09.2017, the petitioner went to the
school to meet the Principal in routine being the councillor where
the complainant was standing at the gate and when the petitioner
revealed his identity, the complainant and his associates started
abusing him and further started mishandling and gave beatings to
the petitioner for which petitioner also lodged an FIR No. 611/2017
against the complainant under Section 323/341 IPC. The counsel
further stated that the parties entered into a compromise and the
petitioner has also joined the examination.
5. Per contra, APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail
application and contended that the offences being non-
compoundable, a compromise cannot be arrived at; that on
05.09.2017, a call was received at PCR regarding kidnapping of a
teacher from the school and later the complainant contacted the
police and lodged the complaint in the Police Station - Jamia
Nagar.
6. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and
also gone through the contents of the petition and the record of this
case.
7. In the instant case, a call regarding kidnapping of a government
teacher received at PCR and the complainant himself came to the
police station to lodge the complaint against the petitioner and his
medical examination conducted. As far as Memorandum of
Understanding/settlement arrived at between the parties is
concerned, it is pertinent to note that the allegations against the
petitioner are non-compoundable offences.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that the investigation is at preliminary stage, the allegations
levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and are non-
compoundable. Further, during investigation the eye-witness have
reiterated the allegations of kidnapping and abduction against the
petitioner.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory
Bail to the petitioner at this stage.
9. Before parting with the above order it is made clear that the
observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of
the case.
10. The bail application stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 07, 2017
gr
