Delhi High Court
Rajpal vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 30 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 01st October, 2018
Judgment delivered on: 30th October 2018
+ BAIL APPLN.2123/2018
RAJPAL ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP for the State.
SI Manoj, PS Alipur.
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.36/2017 under Sections
302/341/323/34 IPC, Police Station Alipur.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant has a
property dispute with one Braham Singh. On the night of the incident,
the complainant came to his house, when co-accused Hari Prakash
came from behind and started beating him. Thereafter, the other co-
accused including the petitioner are alleged to have come and
threatened that they would kill him. His father on hearing the noise
came out. When the co-accused Braham Prakash and Ashok Kumar
are alleged to have caught hold of the complainant, Hari Prakash and
the petitioner Rajpal are alleged to have started beating his father. It
is alleged that all four of them gave kicks and blows to his father, on
account of which, he fell down and could not get up. He was taken to
Max Hospital where he was declared dead. It is alleged that his father
died on account of blows given by fists and kicks on stomach and
below his stomach.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. It is contended that it is false to contend
that the petitioner had even touched the father of the complainant. It
is submitted that no blows were given to the father of the complainant
and he died on account of natural circumstances. He further submits
that MLC does not support the case of the prosecution and does not
substantiate the fact that the deceased died on account of injuries
which are alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that at the
time of the framing of charge, Trial Court sought expert opinion and
summoned a doctor, who after examining the medical report, had
opined that the injuries mentioned in the column of external injury in
themselves were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of
nature. Medical report showed that there were fractures of underlined
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th left side ribs along midclavicular line as well as
fracture of sternum and fracture of underlined 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs
of right side along midclavicular line. Further, the doctor in his
statement has stated that the internal injuries in the Post-mortem
Report could be caused by Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
efforts and could be peri-mortem injuries. Though the doctor stated
that he could not rule out that the petitioner did not die because of
some trivial injuries during scuffle, he further stated that abrasions as
mentioned in external injury column could have precipitated an
already compromised heart.
5. MLC filed on record shows that the patient had become
unresponsive before arrival at Max emergency. In view of the fact that
the patient was unresponsive and pulse and blood pressure was not
detectable, CPR was administered. However, patient could not be
revived and was declared brought dead.
6. CCTV footage of the incident has also been produced by the
Investigating Officer. CCTV footage was also produced and seen by
the court while considering the application seeking regular Bail filed
by co-accused Braham Singh. After seeing the CCTV footage, this
Court had granted regular bail to the said co-accused on 16.05.2018.
7. Though in the CCTV footage the spot is partly obscured by a
board, but it can be clearly seen that the footage does not prima facie
support the allegation that the deceased was caught hold of by the
petitioner and the co-accused and four of them had given blows with
fists and kicks to him.
8. There are no external injuries noticed. Mere minor abrasions are
noticed on the limbs, which could be the result of the fall. The injuries
mentioned in the column of external injury in themselves were not
sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature. The internal
injuries in the Post-mortem Report could be caused by Cardio
Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) efforts and could be peri-mortem
injuries. Medical opinion on Post-mortem report opines the cause of
death as injuries to the chest precipitating failure of already
compromised heart.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view
that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
10. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required
in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall
not make any endeavour to contact either the complainant or family of
the complainant. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the
permission of the Trial Court.
11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 30, 2018/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
