Delhi High Court
Nitin Kumar Sood @ Sumit vs The State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 30 November, 2018
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.11.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1890/2018
NITIN KUMAR SOOD @ SUMIT ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP with SI Sanjay Singh,
P.S.Ambedkar Nagar.
Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Adv. for the
complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
30.11.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.277/2018 under
Sections 324/341/34 IPC. Subsequently, Section 354B and 326 has
also been added.
2. Subject FIR has been registered consequent to a quarrel that
took place between the two neighbouring families. It is alleged that
the petitioner's family was abusing the family of the complainant
when the family of the complainant objected, they started assaulting
them. When the complainant came on the spot, he found that his
father was being assaulted. He intervened and subsequently the
petitioner is alleged to have stabbed the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated as the subject FIR is a counter blast to the FIR
registered by the complainant and his family being FIR No.279/2018.
It is alleged that the family of the complainant had assaulted the
family of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner sustained
grievous injury on his head as he was hit by an iron rod and an FIR
inter alia under section 308 IPC has been registered.
4. Status report has been filed. Same is taken on record. As per the
status report petitioner joined investigation, however, did not aid and
assist in the recovery of the weapon of offence which was used to stab
the complainant on his thigh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated and no weapon was used by the petitioner and
as such there was no question of the petitioner aiding and assisting in
recovery of the alleged weapon. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the accused in the FIR lodged by the petitioner
have already been enlarged on bail.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and
without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the
record, I am of the view that petitioner has made out a case for grant
of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything which may
prejudice the investigation, trial or the prosecution witnesses.
Petitioner shall not contact the complainant or her family members.
Both the parties shall ensure that peace and harmony is maintained in
the area and no incident occurs between the families.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 30, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rk
