Delhi High Court
Ganesh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 15 February, 2019
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.02.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 317/2019
SATISH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 318/2019
GANESH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr.Gaurav Seth, Mr.Mohit Bhardwaj, Mr.Pankaj Gupta
and Mr.Vipin Malik, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with ASI Anirudh,
P.S.Kalyanpuri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 51/2019 under Sections
308/324/34 of the IPC, Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
2. Status report has been filed in Bail APPLN.317/2019. Same is
taken on record.
3. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant was attending
the marriage of his nephew which was being held in a park and at
about 8.30 PM they observed some boys coming into the tent. When
their presence was objected to, they left and subsequently it is alleged
that they came armed with sticks and lathis and in an intoxicated state,
started assaulting the complainant and his family members. Petitioners
were the ones who were being identified and named in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioners had gone
to the tent as they were looking for the tent house owner with whom
they had some work as they wanted to book a tent for a religious
ceremony which was contemplated later.
5. He submits that when they entered the tent searching for the
tent house owner, they were assaulted by the complainant and his
family members. Accordingly, an FIR has also been registered on his
complaint under Section 308/34 against the complainant and his
family members.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner
had sustained serious injuries and he was hospitalised and referred to
GTB Hospital and discharged the following day whereas the
complainants in the subject FIR were discharged the same day after
some treatment. He further submits that complainants have thereafter
not joined investigation and are absconding.
7. Learned APP under instructions submits that the complainant of
the subject FIR and his family members who are accused in the FIR
registered on the complaint of the petitioner are not traceable and the
IO has not been able to contact them and are not coming forward. He,
however, confirms that the injured in the subject FIR were discharged
the same day.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that petitioners have made out a case for grant of regular bail.
Accordingly, on petitioners furnishing a bail bond each in the sum of
Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court, petitioners shall be released on bail, if not required
in any other case. Petitioners shall not do anything which may
prejudice either the investigation, or the prosecution witnesses.
9. Petitions are allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2019/rk
