Delhi High Court
Momeen vs State on 25 November, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 14.11.2019
% Pronounced on : 25.11.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2767/2019
MOMEEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Ahlwat, APP for
State with ASI Pavinder
Kumar.
Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma, Adv.
for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2769/2019
AMIR AMEEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Ahlwat, APP for
State with ASI Pavinder
Kumar.
Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma, Adv.
for complainant.
Bail Appln. Nos. 2767/2019, 2769/2019 & 2770/2019 Page 1 of 6
+ BAIL APPLN. 2770/2019
TAQVEEM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Ahlwat, APP for
State with ASI Pavinder
Kumar.
Mr. Sachin Dev Sharma, Adv.
for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of three bail applications
bearing No. 2767/2019, 2769/2019 and 2770/2019, moved by the
petitioners namely Momeen, Amir Ameen and Taqveem respectively
under Section 438 read with section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of
anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 150/2019, U/s 308/195A/34
IPC registered at Police Station- Chandni Mahal.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused. I have also perused the
status report filed by the state.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of
the complainant Zahid-Ur-Rehman. He further submitted that no such
incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place on 16.09.2019.
4. He further urged that on the alleged time and dates of the
incident i.e. 15.09.2019 and 16.09.2019, the petitioners viz. Momeen,
Amir Ameen and Taqveem were not present at the alleged place of
incident. He further urged that on 15.09.2019 and 16.09.2019,
petitioner Momeen was present at the shop namely Aslam Chicken at
Jama Masjid Delhi where he is working as a Chef. Photographs of
the CCTV footage of the said shop also placed on record by the Ld.
counsel for the petitioners. In respect of petitioner Amir Ameen, it is
submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that he is a student of
BA (Programme) and regular student of Zakir Husain College and is
enrolled with Life Insurance Corporation for LIC agent and on
15.09.2019, petitioner Amir Ameen was at his home and on
16.09.2019 he was attending the training session at LIC office Asaf
Ali Road at the time of alleged incident. As far as petitioner Taqveem
is concerned, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for petitioners that
on 15.09.2019 petitioner Taqveen was at his home and on 16.09.2019
he was at Tis Hazari Court in mediation centre where he came
alongwith his sister in law (bhabi) in connection to her case titled as
Mohd Ali Vs. Naushad Ahmad & Ors. He further submitted that on
16.09.2019 petitioner Taqveem alongwith her sister-in-law reached
Sh. Ashok Arya Advocate at Tis Hazari Court between 12:00 a.m to
12:15 p.m and remained present throughout the proceedings from
2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m and they left the central hall Tis Hazari at 3:15
p.m.
5. It is further urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that all
the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence of
15-16.09.2019. He further urged that the petitioners are not required
for any custodial interrogation purposes.
6. On the other hand, while opposing the bail applications, Ld.
APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are grave and
serious in nature; they are not joining the investigation and sending
complaints stating that the present FIR has been falsely registered
against them. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state
that during the curse of inquiry, it was also revealed that several
criminal cases are already pending trial between the complainant and
the petitioners.
7. With regard to the contention of the Ld. counsel for the
petitioners that on the alleged time and dates of the incident i.e.
15.09.2019 and 16.09.2019, petitioners were not present at the place
of the incident, it is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that
the distance between the place of the incident and the different places
where as per the Ld. counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were
present separately at the time of the incident is very less and the same
can be covered within few minutes by using any vehicle. He further
submitted that as per Cell ID location of mobile number 9711474790
of petitioner Taqveem, he left Tis Hazari court at about 15:26 Hrs. and
alleged time of incident is 15:45 Hrs.
8. He further urged that the petitioners are absconding to avoid
their arrest and their custodial interrogation is required to recover the
weapon of offence. It is further urged by the Ld. APP for the state
that the investigation of the case is at its initial stage and the
petitioners are involved in two more similar cases which they
committed by adopting similar modus operandi.
9. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 15.09.2019,
at about 11:00 p.m when the complainant was going towards Turkman
Gate, petitioners met him and threatened him not to give evidence in
case FIR No. 71/19 U/s 308/452/427/34 IPC registered at PS Chandni
Mahal which was coming up for hearing in the trial Court on
17.09.2019. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioners
on 16.09.2019, at about 3:45 p.m. attacked the complainant when he
was going towards Kamla Market from Shankar Gali from his
backside with sharp edge weapon as a result of which the complainant
received injury on his neck behind the ear. It is also pertinent to
mention here that as per the complainant two-three persons had
attacked him from behind with some sharp edge weapon as a result of
which he fell unconscious on the ground and was removed to L.N.J.P.
hospital. Thereafter, after getting discharged from the hospital, since
the petitioners had threatened him on 15.09.2019 and since according
to him they had tried to kill him on previous occasion also, therefore,
he had placed his suspicion on these three petitioners for the attack on
him on 16.09.2019. It is also pertinent to note that many cases are
also pending between the complainant and the petitioners and father
of the petitioners.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, all the said three bail applications are allowed and it is ordered
that in the event of arrest, all the petitioners namely Momeen, Amir
Ameen and Taqveem be released on bail, on their furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of
the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
However, they are directed to join the investigation as and when
called by the IO of the case. All the said three bail applications are
disposed of accordingly.
11. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression
of any opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2019
Sumant
