Delhi High Court
Mahender Singh vs State Of Delhi on 26 March, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 75/2019
MAHENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Khosla and Mr. Sarvesh Tyagi, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with SI Naresh
and SI Sumit P.S.Mohan Garden.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.1004 of 2018 under
Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Uttam
Nagar (now transferred to Police Station Mohan Garden).
2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant who was outside his
house was accosted by some boys, one of whom was co accused Himanshu.
They threatened him and attempted to stab him. When his father intervened
they stabbed his father. The complainant received injuries on his hand
whereas his father received stab wounds in his stomach which as per the
medical report are life threatening.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that the complainant has not named
him in the FIR though they are closely related and well known to each
other. Learned counsel submits that in the FIR the categorical statement of
the complainant is that apart from Himanshu he does not know the others
but can identify them if produced before him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
complainant knows the petitioner being closely related being the son of the
real brother of the father of the petitioner, in his statement given to the
police based on which the FIR was registered on 26.10.2018 and his
statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. also on 26.10.2018, has not named the
petitioner. However, subsequently after a gap of nearly 22 days in the
supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of the
complainant and the statement of the father of the complainant recorded on
18.11.2018 and in the statement of the father of the complainant recorded
under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 22.11.2018, the petitioner is alleged to have
been present on the spot of the incident and has been ascribed the role of
exalting the main accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated as there was dispute between the families.
6. By order dated 15.01.2019, the petitioner was granted interim
protection subject to joining of the investigation.
7. Status report has been filed which states that the petitioner joined the
investigation as and when was so directed by the Investigating Officer.
Status report further indicates that no concrete evidence was found against
the petitioner to establish his presence on the scene of the incident except
for the statement of the injured - Ami Lal, father of the complainant.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the
petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting
officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on petitioner furnishing a
bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO
concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the
trial or the prosecution witnesses.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 26, 2019
'rs'
