Delhi High Court
Sh. Naresh & Ors vs State on 5 July, 2018
$~16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 5th July, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1156/2017 and Crl. M.A. 9993/2017
SH. NARESH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao with Mr.
Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the
applicants
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for
the State
Mr. Pradeep Teotia and Mr. Siddharth
Chaturveid, Advocate for the complainant
/R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The names of the eight petitioners i.e. Naresh S/o. Sh. Ram
Kishan, Satender @ Sant Ram S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal, Manoj S/o. Sh.
Kesri, Ajay S/o. Sh. Kawar Lal, Jitender S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, Shyamvir
S/o. Santram, Kesri S/o. Sh. Aflatoon and Rakesh S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal,
all residents of A-34, New Usmanpur, Gali No.1, 2nd Pusta, Delhi-
110053 have figured in the investigation into FIR no.241/2017 under
Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act of police station
Usmanpur, Delhi and they apprehending arrest have approached this
court with the petition at hand under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for release on anticipatory bail.
2. Pursuant to the directions given earlier by order dated
15.06.2017 while notice was issued to the State, interim protection
was granted in their favour. In terms of the earlier directions, status
reports have come on record from time to time. The incident which is
the subject matter of the case in which prayer for anticipatory bail is
made occurred on 12.04.2017.
3. It may be added here that the status report dated 21.05.2018 of
Inspector Dheeraj Singh of District Investigation Unit of North-East
District relates to another crime (FIR 1128/2017) involving offences
punishable under Sections 307,336,506,34 IPC and Section 27 of
Arms Act. This needs to be mentioned because the said report
(additional status report) does not give the particulars of the case to
which its contents relate and though it has been filed with reference to
the present bail application.
4. The case FIR 241/2017, as observed earlier, concerns the
incident that occurred on 12.04.2017, in which one Mahipal suffered
fire-arm injury at about 10.30 a.m. As per the statements under
Section 161 Cr.PC of Mahipal recorded on 13.04.2017 and
26.04.2017, the petitioners were amongst the assailants. It is the
version of victim Mahipal that when he was present in the old animal
shed in Village Usmanpur tending his animals, the petitioners and
certain other persons had come there, they including Sonu who was
holding a fire-arm (pistol like object) in his possession. He was
assaulted and in the course of the incident the said Sonu had fired at
him, the bullet having hit on his right hand where-after the assailants
had fled away.
5. The version of the petitioners is that it is a case of false
implication, the entire story having been concocted. It is their
submission that the complainant and his associates have tried to
wrongfully grab their land to use it for unauthorized parking of the
vehicles which was the bone of contention between two sides and the
quarrel actually having resulted in attack by the victim and his side
against the petitioners and members of their family. Reliance is
placed on the telephone calls made by Jitender and Kamlesh to the
police control room (PCR).
6. Copies of the PCR forms relating to three calls purportedly
pertaining to this incident have been placed on record, the first of them
being a call made at 10:49:16 hours on 12.04.2017 by one Kapil,
nephew of victim Mahipal. The input thus received through this PCR
call brings out the earliest version of the complainant side as to the
involvement of some of the associates on the side of Sonu with whom
the petitioners are connected. The incident having occurred at about
10.30 a.m., the veracity of the information received by the subsequent
calls to PCR logged at 10:55:51 and 11:39:48 hours of 12.04.2017
would need to be investigated and examined. The said two calls
attributed to persons named as Jitender and Kamlesh, generally refer
to a quarrel happening. Since Mahipal is shown by the evidence to
have been injured at 10.30 a.m. by projectile from fire-arm, it is
difficult to believe at this stage that an assailant from the other side
would have been present holding a gun extending threats at 10.55 a.m.
as is the scene portrayed in the second call.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the
allegations made and being investigated against the petitioners in a
case of such grave nature as involves offence under Section 307 IPC
by use of a fire-arm are wholly unfounded.
8. Though the above by itself is a reason good enough to decline
release on anticipatory bail, there is another reason to do so and that
pertains to the subsequent events. As noted above, the interim
protection was granted to the petitioners against coercive action by
order dated 15.06.2017. At the same time they were also directed,
inter alia, not to make contact, directly or indirectly, with any person
on the side of the complainant. And yet, the incident which is subject
matter of FIR 1128/2017 occurred on 19.11.2017 wherein, once again,
fire-arm was used against the same victim Mahipal, he having been
accosted by two persons indentified as Shyamveer and Kalu, they
being allegedly aided and assisted by two other persons named Sushil
@ Guruji and Jitender @ Jittey. As per the additional status report
dated 21.05.2018, the evidence has come forth, including CCTV
footage, indicating complicity of the said persons, who statedly are
connected to the petitioners herein.
9. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, no case for release on
anticipatory bail is made out. Interim orders are vacated.
10. The bail application and the application filed therewith are
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 05, 2018/yg
