Delhi High Court
Santosh vs State on 21 February, 2019
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2816/2018
SANTOSH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Rebecca John, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sumit Chaudhary,
Mr.Kushdeep Gaur, and Ms.Megha Bahl, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with Insp.Ram Avtar,
P.S.Kanjhawala.
Mr.S.P.Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.427/2018 under
Sections 308/304/34 IPC, Police Station Kanjhawala. Subsequently on
the death of the injured, Section 302 IPC has been added.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant along with
his mother and father were going to their field and working there.
They share a common field with the petitioner and her family and
there was earlier also a dispute with regard to sharing of water.
3. It is alleged that on the day of the incident i.e. 28.10.2018, the
complainant along with his father and mother went to the field to
work. Petitioner and her son were already working in their field. A
quarrel took place and the petitioner abused the mother and father of
the complainant and a verbal altercation broke out. Subsequently, the
son of the petitioner who was working in the field with a Kassi
(spade) hit the same on the head of the father of the complainant who
sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital
and subsequently expired after 4 days of treatment.
4. In the supplementary statement of the son and the statement of
the mother under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the complainant and his mother
have alleged that the petitioner held the mother of the complainant
and exhorted her son to hit the father of the complainant on his head
to eliminate him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. She submits that there is a substantial
improvement in the supplementary statement given to the police after
the death of the victim. It is contended that the version that comes out
from the FIR shows that there was a quarrel and the incident happened
on the spur of the moment and there is no mention of any exhortation
given by the petitioner or any role ascribed to the petitioner except of
abusing the complainant and his family.
6. On 11.12.2018 petitioner was granted interim protection subject
to joining investigation. Learned APP under instructions submits that
petitioner has joined investigation and investigation qua her role is
concluded and there is no further requirement of petitioner to join
investigation.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of
the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event
of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on
bail on her 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 either the investigation, trial or the
prosecution witnesses.
8. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
rk
