Delhi High Court
Atul Kumar vs State on 27 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1330/2017
Order reserved on: 24th October, 2017
Order pronounced on: 27th October, 2017
ATUL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Advocate.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Mahesh Chand, PS-Lajpat Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By this present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the
petitioner is seeking grant of Regular Bail in case FIR No.
26/2017 registered under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') registered at Police
Station- Lajpat Nagar.
2. Brief facts as mentioned in the FIR are that on 11.07.2017 at 11:00
pm the complainant received a phone call from his friend Rahul
and he went to Gate No. 3, Jal Vihar. While waiting for his friend
one motorcycle came in which three persons were sitting including
the petitioner who told the complainant that 'Tune jo complaint
hamare khilaf vapis nahi li tujhko samzaya tha' and attacked him
with sharp edged weapon with the intention to kill him. The
complainant was drenched in blood and he was taken to
VIMHANS hospital and then to Moolchand and thereafter to
AIIMS trauma Centre where he received the treatment. Thereafter,
the complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioner
and other co-accused.
3. Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case as there is an old enmity between the complainant and
the petitioner; that the petitioner has provided the CCTV footage to
the Investigating Officer of the case which clearly shows that he
was present at the medical store at the time of the incident; that no
recovery has been made at the instance of the petitioner; that the
petitioner is a person of clean antecedents and there is no
likelihood of the petitioner to temper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP, for the State strongly opposed
the present regular bail application and argued that the allegations
leveled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature; that
the petitioner has categorically named the petitioner in the FIR;
that as per the MLC the complainant has received grave injuries on
his body; that earlier an FIR 0390/2016 was registered by father of
the complainant against the petitioner because of which the
complainant was attacked by the petitioner.
5. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
6. The record reveals that the petitioner has previous enmity with the
complainant and the attack has been made with a sharp edged
weapon on the face and shoulder of the complainant. The MLC
establishes, that the natures of injuries were grievous in nature
which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten
years. The status report further reveals that the petitioner was
absconding from arrest and was apprehended only on 24.06.2017.
The co-accused persons are yet to be arrested and weapon of
offence is also to be recovered.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
gravity of offence, injuries suffered by the complainant and the fact
that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the
crime, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 27 , 2017
