Delhi High Court
Rajkumari vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 13 October, 2017
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 682/2017
RAJKUMARI UPADHYAY ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J. K. Tripathi, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State,
Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS-
Pulprahaldpur.
Mr. Shiva Sambyal, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
% ORDER
11.10.2017
1. By the present petition filed under Section 439 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred as 'Cr.P.C'), the
petitioner/accused seeks Regular Bail in FIR No. 502/15 under
Section 302/506/342/34 of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as
IPC), registered at Police Station Pul Prahaladpur.
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case as per the FIR are that on
the night of 05.12.2015 an information regarding the catching a
thief vide DD No. 5A was received at Police Station and same was
handed over to HC Uttam Nagar. In the meanwhile another DD
No. 6A regarding scuffle was received at Police Station and again
same was sent to HC Uttam Nagar. The FIR was registered under
Bail Appln. 682/2017 Page 1 of 4
Sections 307/506/34 IPC and thereafter upon death of the deceased
Section 307 IPC was converted to Section 302 IPC.
3. The complainant Raju (father of the deceased) submitted that his
son [email protected] Rakesh (deceased) went to his Mausi's house at
Lakarpur on 4.12.2015 at about 10:00 PM and at about 1:00
AM at night, complainant's neighbour Manoj came to his house
and informed him that he could hear the complainant's son
shouting and crying from inside petitioner/accused's house. The
complainant alongwith his neighbour rushed to the house of
petitioner/accused and upon reaching there the complainant
knocked the door but the petitioner/accused and her family did not
open the door. They opened the door when police arrived and the
injured Rakesh was taken to the hospital by the PCR.
4. Mr. J.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
contended that there are no specific allegations against the
petitioner/accused and the only allegation against the
petitioner/accused in the chargesheet is that she alongwith other
accused dragged the deceased inside the house and gave him
beating; that the allegations are vague and no specific role is
assigned to the petitioner/accused; that the chargesheet has been
filed and she is no more required for custodial interrogation; that
the deceased was 18 years old and it is not possible that the
deceased could have been dragged from the main road without
raising hue and cry; that the statement of the father of the deceased
is not trustworthy as the statement was recorded on the next day
Bail Appln. 682/2017 Page 2 of 4
which is an afterthought in order to implicate the
petitioner/accused.
5. Per contra, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed
the grant of the bail to the petitioner/accused and contended that
the petitioner/accused was actively involved in commission of
offence. The weapon of offence was also recovered from the
premises of the petitioner/accused and onus is on the
petitioner/accused to prove her innocence as she was present at the
spot when the deceased was removed to the hospital.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the material on record.
7. It has been revealed during the course of investigation that the
petitioner/accused was actively involved in the commission of
crime. Deceased's father named the petitioner/accused alongwith
other persons as accused and stated that the deceased had told him
that he was beaten up by the accused persons. Perusal of the MLC
reveals that the deceased has received 16 injuries and all the
injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt external
forces/impact. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem has
opined that the injuries could be caused by alleged weapon of
offence i.e. danda which was recovered at the instance of the co-
accused. The presence of the present petitioner/accused at the time
of commission of offence has also been established by the
statement of Mehtab and Seema.
Bail Appln. 682/2017 Page 3 of 4
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the facts and
circumstances and the nature and gravity of the alleged offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner in this
case. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
9. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that nothing
observed herein shall have any bearing upon the merits of the case
during trial.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2017
gr
