Paramjeet @ Gola vs State
2019 Latest Caselaw 6644 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Date of Decision: 18.12.2019

+     BAIL APPLN. 2932/2019
      Paramjeet @ Gola                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate
                          versus

      THE STATE OF DELHI                          ..... Respondent
                   Through:           Mr Tarang Srivastava
                                      APP for State alongwith
                                      SI. Ritu Dangi, PS
                                      Kalyanpuri, East Delhi.

CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                            JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail

application under section 438 Cr.P.C. r/w. section 482 CrPC filed on

behalf of the petitioner Paramjeet @ Gola in FIR No. 433/19 u/s.

323/343/427/452/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC, P.S. Kalyan Puri.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present FIR. The FIR has been registered on

forged, false and fabricated facts. It is submitted that on 13.09.2019

at about 9.00 PM in the evening Jasvider Singh, Anil (father of the

complainant), Vikram and Gulle had mercilessly beaten Manjeet @

Thaggi (cousin of the petitioner) and Manish, consequent to which a

call at 100 number was made and it was registered vide DD No.

65A. As the injured persons Manjeet and Manish were under

treatment in hospital, they could not give their statements on

13.09.2019. Later on FIR No. 434/2019 dated 14.09.2019 was

lodged in this regard against Jasvider Singh, Anil (father of the

complainant), Vikram and Gulle. The accused persons in FIR No.

434/2019 concocted a false story to rope the petitioner and his

family and they made their daughter to make a false call at 100

number alleging misbehaviour and other offences committed by the

petitioner at 11.30 pm on 13.09.2019. The said call was registered

vide DD No. 91A dated 13.09.2019 and later on the present FIR No.

433/2019 PS Kalyanpuri was registered.

3. It is submitted that petitioner being the cousin of injured

Manjeet had taken him to the hospital and had remained with him

there till 11.24 PM on 13.09.2019. This is clear from CCTV footage

of the hospital which was later on seen by the IO of the case and

time was noted. From the hospital, the petitioner took his cousin

Manjeet to his house and remained there. Hence, possibility of the

petitioner being present in the house of the complainant at 11.30 PM

on 13.09.2019 does not arise. The petitioner had moved an

application u/s 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ,

Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi. However, the said application of

the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated

23.10.2019.

4. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to join the investigation

as and when required and in these circumstances, it is prayed that

petitioner be released on bail in the event of his arrest.

5. The anticipatory bail is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State

on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious

in nature. Petitioner is not joining the investigation. The

investigation is still in progress and at initial stage. The petitioner is

not cooperating with the investigating officer. Custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is required. He has, therefore prayed

for dismissal of the bail application.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the FIR

reveals that victim /complainant, who is 16 years old, has given a

statement that on 13.09.2019, when she was at her home with her

younger brother, petitioner Gola, Angutha, Lala, Babu and Santy

entered her house and they molested and misbehaved with her and

vandalized household items. The statement of the victim u/s. 164

CrPC was recorded by the court of Ld. MM, KKD Court on

16.09.2019, in which she has corroborated the allegations made in

the FIR. It is, however, contended by ld. Counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner Paramjeet @ Gola was at LBS hospital on

13.09.2019 up to 11:24 PM with his injured cousin Manjeet and the

alleged incident has happened at about 11.30 PM and thus, there can

be no question of the petitioner being present at the spot at the time

of alleged incident. I have considered the contention of Ld. Counsel

for the petitioner and am of the opinion that this is not the stage to

analyse the evidence and consider the alibi of the petitioner.

However, even if the contention of the Ld. Counsel is accepted for

the sake of arguments, the record reveals that the distance between

the place of incident and LBS hospital is about 1 KM only and if

any person goes on a vehicle like motor-cycle or car at a speed of

even 30 km/h, he can easily reach at the place of incident from LBS

hospital in two minute only. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for

the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted.

7. Keeping in view the above facts and also the fact that

petitioner is absconding and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC

have been initiated against him by the Ld. Trial Court and the case

is at the initial stage of investigation and the petitioner is not joining

the investigation and his custodial interrogation is required, no

grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail

application is, therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 18, 2019 Amit