Delhi High Court
Mohd. Moti vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 November, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2049/2017
MOHD. MOTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
O RDER
06.11.2017
Crl. M. A. No. 16758/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. No. 2049/2017
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for
seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 498/2017 under Sections
307/452/34 IPC registered at Police Station - Sangam Vihar.
2. The brief and necessary facts to dispose of the present petition is
that on 17.09.2017, the complainant/Roshanara along with her son
Owais Altmas went to the house of her sister-in-law/Akbari
Khatton where her another sister-in-law/Gulshan Aara,
Devrani/Majhabin Fatima and Rehan, son of Akbari Khatoon were
already present; that at about 9:00p.m., accused Raja @ Shamshad
along with his friends Salman @ Nepali and Naseem came there
and enquired from Majhabin Fatima about her husband Nihal; that
BAIL APPLN. 2049/2017 Page 1 of 5
Raja and Salman were armed with knife and Nasim was carrying
an iron rod; that when Mahjabin expressed her inability to tell
about her husband Nihal, Raja put hold the neck of Mahjabin
Fatima; that the complainant, Owais Altmas, Rehan and Gulshan
tried to help Mahjabini Fatima, Raja inflicted injuries on the
complainant and her son Owais Altmas; that Salman inflicted
injuries on Rehan; that Nasim attacked on Gulshan with an iron
rode; that in the meantime Mohd. Moti, father of Raja @ Shahsad,
Rehmat Hussain, father of Salman came to the spot and both
instigated the accused persons to kill the complainant and her
companions; that people of the locality gathered at the spot on
which all accused persons succeeded to flee from the spot; injured
were transferred to Majidia Hospital; that victim Owais Altmas
received grave injury whereas complainant and other victims
received simple injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is
an innocent person having clean antecedents; that the petitioner has
no role to play in the alleged scuffle took place between his son
and the complainant and her relatives; that the petitioner was not
present at the time of alleged incident and he came to know about
the same later on; that the complainant and his relatives belongs to
the same village of the petitioner and the instant FIR is the
outcome of the personal grudge against each other.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
present bail application and contended that non-bailable warrants
have already been issued against the petitioner and he is evading
BAIL APPLN. 2049/2017 Page 2 of 5
the process of law and was involved I the commission of crime;
that the petitioner exhorted the other co-accused persons by saying
"Maro Saalo Ko" which made them inflict knife injuries on the
complainant and her family members.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. In Central Bureau of Investigation V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in
(2013 ) 7 SCC 452, wherein the Apex Court has observed that:
"While granting bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusation, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind
that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words "reasonable
grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"
which means the Court dealing with the grant of
bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
BAIL APPLN. 2049/2017 Page 3 of 5
evidence in support of the charge. It is not
expected, at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt."
7. In Singashan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2015
(1) RCR (Criminal) 786, the Apex Court held that :
"This Court has time and again held that neither
anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted
as a matter of rule. Sections 438 and 439 of the
Code substantially embody the same principle
so far as appreciation of the case as to whether
or not a bail is to be granted. The judicial
discretion vested in the Court requires to be
appropriately exercised with proper application
of mind in determining whether a case is a fit
case for grant of anticipatory bail or not. The
41st Report of the Law Commission of India
recommended the introduction of a provision
for grant of anticipatory bail has observed that
"power to grant anticipatory bail should be
exercised in very exceptional cases". It should
only be exercised in exceptional cases when the
court is satisfied that the person to be enlarged
on anticipatory bail would not misuse his
liberty."
BAIL APPLN. 2049/2017 Page 4 of 5
8. As per the record, the role attributed to the petitioner, father of
accused Raja is that he along with co-accused Rehmat Hussain,
father of accused Salman came to the spot and both instigated other
accused persons, who were carrying deadly weapons, to kill the
complainant and her family members. As per MLC, victim Owais
Altmas received grievous injury (Life threatening). The role
assigned to the petitioner is similar to the role of co-accused
Rehmat Hussain, father of accused Salman, who was arrested on
18.09.2017 and sent to judicial custody on 19.09.2017. The
petitioner is absconding and evading the process of law and non-
bailable warrants have also been issued against him.
9. Keeping in view of the settled principle of law for grant the
anticipatory bail and facts and circumstances of the present case, I
am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this
stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
10. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that
observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of
the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
gr
