Ms Geeta vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2017 Latest Caselaw 3074 Del

$~9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                           Date of Decision: July 6, 2017

+                           BAIL APPLN. 1227/2017
       MS GEETA                                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Through:    Mr.Praveen Goswami &
                                        Mr.Dheeraj Sharma, Advocates
                                   versus
       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                    ..... Respondent
                     Through:           Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
                                        the State with SI C.B.Sharma,
                                        PS New Usmanpur
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in the case FIR No.258/2017 under Section 308/34 IPC, PS New Usmanpur. The petitioner Geeta had earlier applied for anticipatory bail before the learned ASJ. The prayer of Geeta for releasing her on anticipatory bail has been declined by the learned ASJ vide common order dated 26th April, 2017 whereby the three bail applications filed by Geeta (petitioner herein), Lokesh and Rakesh have been dismissed for the following reasons:

"26.04.2017 Two bail applications U/s 438 Cr.P.C have been moved on behalf of applicants Lokesh and Geeta while a bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant Rakesh. All the three are taken up together and disposed off vide this common order.

Present: Sh.Dharam Chand, Ld.Addl. PP or the State.

Sh. Praveen Goswami, Ld.Counsel for all three applicants. IO ASI Rajbir Singh.

Common report filed. Submissions heard.

As per state case, applicants Rakesh, Lokesh @ Lucky, Geeta and two others namely Rinku and Gandhi were quarrelling. On seeing them quarrelling, the complainant intervened to pacify the matter. Applicant Rakesh who was in inebriated condition told others to teach the complainant a lesson. Applicant Lokesh @ Lucky caught the complainant while applicant Geeta hit a 2 kg weight on his head. Applicant Rakesh bit the complainant on his private parts due to which he became unconscious.

It is submitted by ld.Counsel for the applicants that the present FIR has been registered on the false statement of the complainant. A cross case is stated to have been registered against the complainant. The complainant misbehaved with the applicant Geeta, sister of the applicants Lokesh and Rakesh due to which a fight ensued. Both the applicants Lokesh and Rakesh are also stated to have received stitches on their head. The brother of the complainant is stated to be the BC of the area with number of cases pending against him. Applicants are stated to have not been previously convinced. It is stated that no fruitful purpose wold be served by keeping the applicants Lokesh and Geeta in j/c and applicant Rakehs further in j/c. Applicants are redy to furnish sound surety, if granted bail.

Ld.Addl.PP for the State has submitted that the complainant was referred to LNJP hospital and discharged on 17.04.17. He came to give his statement on 18.04.2017. It is further stated that though there is a cross FIR registered, the complainant is not an accused in that case. He further submitted that the applicants do not deserve the liberty sought. "

As per the allegations contained in the FIR No. each applicant has a specific role. MLC of the complainant shows that the complainant had sustained two contused lacerated wound over the left parietal region and multiple bite marks over the scrotum. Injuries sustained by the complainant as reflected in MLC corroborated with the allegations levelled in the FIR. In view of above, relief sought is not made out. Anticipatory bail applications of applicants Lokesh @ Lucky and Geeta and bail application of applicant Rakesh are hereby dismissed.

Signed copy of this order be kept in all the applications.

Coy of this order be given dasti to the parties/IO.

Sd/-

ASJ-02/KKD/DELHI 26.04.2017/M"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions to seek the release of petitioner on anticipatory bail:-

(i) The petitioner has been granted protection by this Court till today and she has joined the investigation.

(ii) As per the MLC the nature of injury is simple.

(iii) The complainant is brother of Devi Gujjar who is B.C. of the area and a cross case has been registered in this case on the complaint made by Smt.Roopwati, wife of accused Rakesh Kumar, who is brother of petitioner Geeta.

(iv) In the said complaint which is placed on record as Annexure-B, allegations have been made against the present petitioner and other persons including police officials for inappropriate behaviour and outraging the modesty of Smt.Roopwati and her Nanad Geeta (the petitioner).

(v) When the family members of Roopwati were informed about the incident, her husband Rakesh and Devar Lucky (accused in this FIR No.258/2017) came to the spot and they were also assaulted and have suffered injuries.

3. The contents of the FIR No.258/2017 under Section 308/34 IPC, PS New Usmanpur reveals that on 16th April, 2017 at about 9:30 PM when the injured Raju visited auto parking he found Rakesh Kumar, Lucky and his sister Geeta and Rinku @ Amit and Gandhi were quarrelling, he intervened and tried to pacify them. At that time accused Rakesh challenged him saying "Tu yahan ka neta banta hai, aaj tujhe maza chkhate hain". Thereafter Lucky, son of Puran caught him. As per the FIR, the allegations against Geeta (petitioner herein) and Rakesh are "uski behan Geeta ne mere sar me do kilo ka lohe ka baat maara aur rakesh ne mujhe mooh se andkosh par kaat liya".

4. As per the MLC of Raju, he was taken by ASI Raj Pal, 285/PCR to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park. But seeing

the condition of the injured, he was referred to higher centre for NCCT head and Neurological opinion Hospital for better management. Thereafter the petitioner was taken to LNJP hospital. After he was discharged from LNJP hospital, he made the statement on the basis of which FIR No.258/2017 was registered.

5. The MLC prepared Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park on 16th April, 2017 at 2201 hrs., copy of which has been placed on record, mentions about the patient being referred to higher centre for NCCT head and Neurological opinion. The MLC mentions as under:-

'A/H/O physical assault on 16.4.17 C/o Plain over injured site.

O/E Pt. Conscious & oriented EVM (1515) Pupil B/L NSNR H/O LOC + No H/o Seizure, vomiting L/W + over left parietal region (5 X 0.3 cm, 3 X 0.2 cm) Multiple scrotal abrasion + over both sides Adv. NCCT Head.

Inj. T.T.

Inj. Diclofinac

Refer to higher centre for NCCT Head and Neurological opinion'

6. As per the record, the incident pertaining to the FIR No.258/2017 under Section 308/34 IPC, PS New Usmanpur has taken place on 16th April, 2017 at about 9:30 PM whereas the complaint by Smt.Roopwati has been sent on 21st April, 2017 to the Commissioner

of Police. In the said complaint it is mentioned that the injuries suffered by Raju (injured in this case) are self inflicted to create defence in the cross-case.

7. At this stage, while considering the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail, the nature of the injuries and the parts of the body where the injuries have been caused i.e. on head and private part, are not likely to be self inflicted. Initially the injured was taken to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park where after preparation of his MLC, he was referred to higher centre for NCCT Head and Neurological opinion. Thereafter the injured was taken to LNJP Hospital where he remained hospitalised. Despite that, the opinion about the nature of injuries suffered by the injured has been taken not from LNJP Hospital but from Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, which is opined to be 'simple'.

8. In the case reported as Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal 2005 III AD (SC) 73, the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for release on anticipatory bail and in para 19 held as under:-

"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent

his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interfere in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

9. The petitioner Geeta is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 308/34 IPC and said to be the assailant who hit on the head of Raju with an iron weight of 2 kg.

10. Taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR No.258/2017 under Section 308/34 IPC, PS New Usmanpur, the manner in which the occurrence has allegedly taken place i.e. when injured Raju allegedly intervened to pacify them, the petitioner has allegedly hit on the head of Raju with an iron weight of 2 kgs., it is not a fit case for releasing her on anticipatory bail.

11. The bail application is hereby dismissed. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions raised during hearing of the bail application shall not be deemed to be an expression on merits of the case.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

JULY 06, 2017 'hkaur'