Delhi High Court
Lokesh Khattar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1986/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16716/2017
Order reserved on:8th December,2017
Order pronounced on: 4th January,2018
LOKESH KHATTAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ankush Narang, Mr. Manveen
Dhanjal, Ms. Shivani Kant and Ms.
Prateksha, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with ASI Virender Kumar from
PS- Mayapuri. Mr. Irfan Ahmed,
Advocate for complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 2001/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16824/2017
DEEPAK KHATTAR ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ankush Narang, Mr. Manveen
Dhanjal, Ms. Shivani Kant and Ms.
Prateksha, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with ASI Virender Kumar from
PS- Mayapuri. Mr. Irfan Ahmed,
Advocate for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.),
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR
No. 186/17, under Section 323/308/506/34 of The Indian Penal
Code,1860(hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by
P.S. Mayapuri, New-Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was
lodged by one Sanjay Khattar, who alleged that on 09.07.2017, at
around 7:00 pm, when he along with his wife was selling goods on
patri opposite shop Deepak electronics/shop belonging to his
brother Deepak Khattar/petitioner, a scooter of one Deepak's
customer was parked on part of the patri and on request made to
the said customer by the complainant, it was made to be parked at
some distance. On this, Sanjay Khattar got agitated and started
abusing them and then asked his son namely Praveen Kumar and
Lokesh Kumar/petitioner to kill them. After which, scuffle took
place between them and Deepak Khattar/petitioner along with his
sons beaten up the complainant . Thereafter, the complaint was
lodged against the petitioners under Section 323/308/506/34 of
IPC. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present
FIR filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated; that the
petitioners were victim of circumstances as the complainant tried to
hit Deepak Khattar /father of Lokesh with a hammer on his head
and on failure to do so, hit him on the foot; that the Deepak Khattar
/father of Lokesh/petitioner also sustained injury and got examined
himself vide MLC No. 5965 on 09.07.2017; that perusal of the CD
shows that the petitioners are no where seen hitting the
complainant; that the complainant has been giving threats to the
petitioners to implicate them in false cases and even complaint has
been filed by Deepak Khattar/petitioner at P.S Mayapuri on
12.07.2017; that the complainant has already been discharged from
the hospital and the injuries are simple; that there is a delay of 3
days in filing the present FIR; that the petitioner is not required for
any custodial interrogation. Hence, the present petition should be
allowed.
4. Per Contra, the learned APP for the State for contends that benefit
of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner as the
offence is of serious nature.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the petitioners
herein is involved in a serious crime in association with each other.
It was specifically alleged by the complainant during lodging of
FIR that when the scuffle took place, Deepak Kumar/petitioner
asked his sons namely Lokesh Kumar/petitioner and Praveen
Kumar to brutally beat them and kill the complainant and his wife,
as he will further manage things. Thereafter, Praveen Kumar got
lathi, Lokesh Kumar/petitioner caught him with his hands and
Praveen attacked him on his head by lathi. It was alleged that
Lokesh Kumar/petitioner also attacked him by giving fist blow on
his ribs and attacked his wife as well. It was further alleged that
they were even threatened by them when they were taken to the
hospital for medical treatment.
7. Perusal of the record further shows that the complainant received
some serious injuries and the MLC No. 6008/17 stated the
following injuries sustained by him, that is , (1) CLW (4X 0.5)
over (Lt) parietal region (2) Bruises over (Lt) shoulder (3) Bruises
over (Lt) hypochondria and MLC No. 5443/17 (1) swelling over
the dorsum of (Lt) hand with tenderness (2) Reddish liner bruise
seen over the anterior aspect (Rt) thigh with swelling and
tenderness (3) Reddish liner bruise seen over the anterior aspect
(Lt) thigh (4) Tenderness with overlying liner abrasion over the
(Lt) shoulder and difficulty in abducting the shoulder (5) Reddish
liner bruise over the exterior aspect of (Lt) arm. The said report
shows that the injury received by him are serious and further, it is
also observed that even his wife sustained injury on account of
such brawl and her MLC No.5443/17, stated nature of injury
simple.
8. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that the petitioners
acting in close connivance with each other have inflicted serious
injuries on the complainant and his wife. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, determining the parameters in
granting anticipatory bail in cases of serious offences, The
Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat
& Anr reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 after analyzing the entire law
has observed as under:-
"(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation
and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is
made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including
the fact as to whether the accused has
previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood
to repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made
only with the object of injuring or humiliating
the applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully. The court must also clearly
comprehend the exact role of the accused in
the case. The cases in which the accused is
implicated with the help of Sections
34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
should consider with even greater care and
caution, because overimplication in the cases
is a matter of common knowledge and
concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full
investigation, and there should be prevention
of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail and in the event
of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused in entitled to an
order of bail."
9. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the present case as well as
the decision of the Apex Court above, this court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, petition stands
dismissed.
10. Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits
of the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JANUARY 04, 2018 gr//
