Delhi High Court
Rohit @ Jayant vs State on 29 March, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.03.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2353/2018 & Crl. M.A. 33745/2018
ROHIT @ JAYANT ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Nair and Mr. Avdhesh Nuhiwala,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with ASI
Suresh Kumar
Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa and Mr. Raghav Alok, Advs.
for the Complainant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 165/2018 under
Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police
Station Inderpuri.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had a
dispute with the petitioner and on the day of the incident, it is alleged
that complainant was standing outside his factory when the petitioner
along with his father, brother and other co-accused came on the spot
and starting assaulting him. It is alleged that the co-accused gave a
glass bottle to the petitioner who broke it and hit the complainant with
the bottle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is an ongoing
dispute between the complainant and the family of the petitioner and
petitioner has been falsely implicated in view of the said dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
employed as a Peon with a service provider - Orient Security
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and is deputed for his duty at BHEL House, Hauz
Khas. He submits that time of the incident as alleged is around 5.45
PM at Inderpuri and the petitioner was, on the date of the incident,
performing his duty in BHEL House in Hauz Khas. It is alleged that
the petitioner left BHEL House, Hauz Khas at about 5.45 PM.
5. Status report has been filed. Along with the status report 'Time
In' and 'Time Out' sheet maintained by BHEL as also the CDR of the
petitioner has been placed on record. The 'Time In' and 'Time Out'
sheet shows that the petitioner left at about 5.45 PM on the day of the
incident and even the tower location of the mobile that petitioner was
alleged to be using is at 5.41 PM at Hauz Khas.
6. The petitioner was directed to join investigation by order dated
08.10.2018. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions, confirms that
petitioner joined the investigation as and when so required by the
Investigating Officer. Investigation qua the role of the petitioner is
complete. However, further investigation is underway.
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.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his
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.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 29, 2019
'rs'
