Delhi High Court
Raj Narayan Sharma vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 16 August, 2018
$~29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th August, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1910/2018 & CRL.M.A. 30057/2018
RAJ NARAYAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Jain with Mr. M.M.
Khan & Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State
with SI Arun Kumar, P.S. Bhajanpura.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The material indicating involvement of the petitioner in the
incident which is subject matter of first information report (FIR)
no.278/2018 of police station Bhajan Pura involving offences
punishable under Sections 307, 145, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections
3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has
come up during investigation. The petitioner, apprehending arrest,
had earlier approached the court of Sessions by moving an application
for anticipatory bail which was declined by order dated 03.08.2018.
He has come up to this court with the petition at hand making similar
prayer, also invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. PC. of
this court.
2. The application is resisted by the respondent / State, inter alia,
on the grounds that, in the facts and circumstances which have
emerged during investigation that has been carried out thus far, there
is a need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it having been
revealed that it was he who had used a firearm and consequently the
investigation also requiring the recovery of the said weapon. The
petitioner's argument primarily is that he is being falsely implicated,
the FIR registered on 29.05.2018 on the complaint of Mohit Nagar not
having mentioned his name.
3. From the narration of the facts in the FIR, it is revealed that the
incident had occurred at 11.45 PM on 28.05.2017, the trigger for
scuffle having come on account of a car of some of the assailants
having touched the car of the complainant who had returned with his
family and friends in two vehicles from a party. It is alleged that the
initial scuffle had boiled into a serious incident in which 20-25 people
had gathered, using abusive language and, inter alia, having resorted
to pelting of stones followed by use of firearms, which were
indiscriminately fired, even the police vehicle having been damaged in
the process. While it does appear that the name of the petitioner was
not mentioned in the FIR, it has to be borne in mind that the FIR is
only the initial document which sets the criminal investigative process
into motion and one that cannot be expected, particularly in a case of
this nature, to be a compendium of all facts.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in the incident has
been brought to light during interrogation of some of the named
accused and since it is he to whom the use of the firearm is attributed,
it is essential that he be subjected to sustained interrogation in custody
and efforts be made for recovery of the weapon.
5. Aside from the above, there is one more reason why the view
taken by the court of Sessions in declining anticipatory bail must be
endorsed. The petitioner has made himself unavailable. The
investigative police had obtained warrants for his arrest from the court
of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which could not be executed. This has
resulted in the process having been initiated for he to be declared a
proclaimed offender.
6. Against the above backdrop, no case is made out for the
petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail. The petition and the
application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 16, 2018
yg
