Shivajeet @ Niku vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 2009 Del

$~14
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                           Order reserved on 10th April, 2019
                         Order pronounced on 12th April, 2019
+      BAIL APPLN. 204/2019
       SHIVAJEET @ NIKU                                 ..... Petitioner
                Through:           Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Ms. Shweta Mehta
                                   and Mr. Vinod Kumar Dubey,
                                   Advocates.

                          versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                      ..... Respondent
                Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') read with Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 393/2018 under Section 323/354(D)/509/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station - Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that on 28.07.2018 at about 5:30 p.m, the complainant was going to drop his cousin sister. On his way, the petitioner, who was standing near the barber shop passed some comments. At about 7:30 p.m., when the

complainant along with his brother Taufiq Ahmed were going to Madarsa, saw the petitioner standing near the barber's shop. The petitioner was questioned for passing comments on her cousin sister on which a scuffle took place. Petitioner caught hold of the complainant and the other accused Vivek picked up a tubelight from the garbage and hit on the stomach of the complainant. The brother of the complainant tried to rescue him but the both accused persons gave beatings to him. Police was called at the spot and an FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.07.2018; the petitioner has not inflicted any injury on the body of the petitioner nor provoked the co-accused; that the that the petitioner had no intention, motive or preparation to kill the complainant as there was no previous enmity between the parties; that no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioner; that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged crime; that chargesheet has been filed before the concerned trial Court and the matter is fixed for framing of charge on 27.04.2019 before the Trial Court; that the petitioner and the witnesses of the case are the resident of same locality and there is every possibility of influencing of the witnesses.

Heard. Record perused.

FIR reveals that the complainant has been assigned a specific role to the petitioner. Relevant part of the FIR reads as under :

"Aaaj Shaam karib 7"30 p.m. mein apne bade bhai Taufiq Ahmad ke saath Masjid se Madarsa me ja raha tha toh raaste mein Naai ki dukan ke pass mujhe ve mere bhai to Shivajeet @ Niku ve uska dost Vivek khade mile. Jo maine ve mere bhai ne Shivajeet @ Niku ko bola ki tu meri Mausi ki Ladki ko aise comments kyon karta hai jo Shivajeet @ Niku ne bola ki veh toh aise hi comments karega. Jo itna kehte hi hamari aapas me kahasuni ho gayi aur Shivajeet @ Niku ne mujhe pakad liya ve uske dost Vivek ne mauke par kabade me padi hui bijli ki tube light uthakar todkar mere petitioner me maari to mujhe chot lagi tatha mera bhai ne mujhe bachana chaha to Shivajeet ve Vivek ne mere bhai ko bhi peeta."

Status report filed by the State reveals that the complainant was treated at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where the doctors opined that "Considering the above mentioned facts, I am opinion of that the stab injury on the abdomen and cutting/tearing on the clothes could have been inflicted by produced weapon of offence (before breaking of the tube light). The injury was dangerous to life in nature."

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, specific role assigned to the petitioner in the commission of the offence and the gravity of the offence, I do not find the present case fit to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.

Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merit of the case.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 12, 2019 gr