Delhi High Court
Rahul Tyagi vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2019
$~6 & 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2554/2017
RAHUL TYAGI ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 2561/2017
BILLU @ DINESH TYAGI ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, and Mr. Karan Sharma,
Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Sri Bhagwan
Mr. S.C. Buttan, Adv. for complainant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 610/2017, Police
Station, Burari under Sections 323/308/34.
2. As per the subject FIR, it is contended that there is a family
dispute between the family of the complainant as well as the family of
the petitioners. On the date of the alleged incident, it is alleged that
the complainant Rajender Tyagi was walking from the disputed site to
his house at about 8-8.15 in the night; he found that Anuj, Vikas and
Sintoo alias Rohit were sitting in the vehicle of Anuj and drinking.
The vehicle was parked in a fashion so as to obstruct the ingress to the
disputed site. Anuj was asked to remove the vehicle and not to drink,
on which it is alleged that they started abusing them and came out of
the car with sticks and rods and assaulted the complainant and his son,
on account of which his son sustained serious injury.
3. It is further contended that on the happening of the incident
when Rakesh raised his voice and made noise, his nephew's son and
Rahul came to the spot and also the brother of Rakesh i.e. Billu,
Billu's son and Rahul and one Sardarji owner of Bharat Motors came
to the site.
4. It is contended that the said persons who joined later also
assaulted them on account of which Rahul and Sunny sustained
injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR,
the petitioners are alleged to have joined the incident after the co-
accused had, allegedly, already assaulted the victims with rods.
6. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by Rahul and Sunny,
who were allegedly assaulted after the petitioners joined, are not
grievous in nature. Learned counsel submits that no MLC of Sunny
was conducted and Rahul, who was examined, had only suffered
simple injuries.
7. Petitioners were granted interim protection by order dated
11.01.2018 subject to joining investigation.
8. Learned Addl. PP submits that the petitioners had joined the
investigation. Investigation is complete and the chargesheet has
already been filed and there is no further requirement of the
petitioners to join investigation.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the
complainant was threatened several times by the co-accused and also
once by the petitioners on 02.05.2018 and warned not to pursue the
complaints else he would be taught a lesson and implicated in a false
case involving some woman.
10. As per the status report filed by learned Addl. PP, several
complaints given by the complainant have been investigated by the
local police and no material incriminating the petitioners was found
for registering a case.
11. 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 petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioners on bail on their
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioners shall not do
anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution
witnesses.
13. The petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
14. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 20, 2019
'rs'
