Delhi High Court
Ajeet Yadav vs State on 17 August, 2020
$~1(appellate side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2112/2020
AJEET YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 17.08.2020
(Video-Conferencing)
1. The applicant seeks anticipatory bail.
2. FIR No. 0202 dated 16th May, 2020 was registered against the
applicant, at PS Saket, alleging commission of offences, by the
applicant, under Sections 307/392/452/354/354-B/506/509/427/147/
148/120-B/34/188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with
Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3. It is alleged, in the FIR, that, between 11 a.m. and 12 noon on
16th May, 2020, Kuldeep Sejwal, who was the landlord of the premises
at F-213/C, 2nd Floor, Old M.B. Road, Lado Sarai, Delhi, arrived with
six or seven bouncers, who broke out the door of the said premises and
assaulted, inter alia, the complainant Sachin Dev as well as other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
persons located therein, including the wife of the proprietor of the
establishment, Mrs. Navmallika. It is also alleged that the said group
of persons destroyed the office furniture and threatened to kill the
complainant.
4. It is further alleged that the said group of persons tore the dress
of Mrs. Navmallika and misbehaved with her and attacked the
complainant with a sharp instrument.
5. The name of the applicant does not figure in the said FIR;
however, consequent to information received subsequently, he has
been arrayed as an accused in the said offences.
6. During investigation, Kuldeep Sejwal, the main accused, i.e.,
the landlord of the premises, was arrested. He applied for bail, vide
Bail Appln. 997/2020. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 8th June, 2020, granted regular bail to Kuldeep Sejwal, inter
alia, on the ground that the assaults suffered were merely simple in
nature, i.e., lacerations in the elbow and injuries on the forehead. This
Court noted that charge-sheet is yet to be filed and trial would take
time.
7. Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State, does not dispute
the fact that, in the present FIR, the main accused was Kuldeep
Sejwal, and that, on merits, the case of the applicant cannot be treated
as more severe than that of Kuldeep Sejwal. At the same time, she
impresses, on the court, the fact that the applicant was in the habit of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
providing bouncers to vacate premises, and submits, therefore, this
Court should keep this factor in mind, while considering the request of
the applicant.
8. In any event, she submits, even if anticipatory bail were to be
granted to the applicant, he ought to be directed to cooperate with the
investigative process and respond to any summons issued to him in
that regard.
9. Consequent on the passing of the aforesaid order, dated 8th June,
2020, by this Court in Kuldeep Sejwal v. State (Bail Appln. 997/20),
three of the co-accused persons, whose cases are indistinguishable
from that of the applicant, were granted anticipatory bail, by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saket, vide order dated
7th July, 2020, which reads thus:
"07.07.2020
Present: Sh. Nischal Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
These are the three applications for bail filed under
Section 438 of Cr.PC by the three different applicants arising
out of the same FIR bearing no. 202/2020 whereby applicants
seek protection from this court from being arrested. Ld.
Counsel for the applicants submitted that they are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They
have nothing to do with the present case. They were
persuaded by their known person for participating in the event
organized by them. He submitted they have no role to play at
the crime. They have further submitted that injury sustained to
the complainant is simple in nature. Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Suresh Kait while granting bail to the main accused Kuldeep
Signature Not Verified
Sejwal had observed that injuries were lacerations on the
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
elbow and forehead of the complainant which were simple in
nature as per the MLC and injured was discharged from the
hospital on the same day.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
accompanied with the investigating officer has opposed the
prayer stating that though the applicants have joined the
investigation, but they have given the contradictory statement
for their presence at the spot. They submitted that they are
henchman brought at the spot by one Kuldeep Dadhwal who
wanted to get vacated the property from the complainant.
I have heard the arguments at bar.
Considering the fact that the main applicant who had
brought the applicant at the spot had been granted bail by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and nothing has to be recovered
from the applicants, all the three applicants are ordered to be
admitted on bail in the event of their arrest subject to
furnishing the personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each along with
two surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of IO/ SHO of
PS concerned.
A copy of this order be uploaded on the website as well
as sent to the counsel for the applicant and IO.
A copy of this order is placed in each of the case file.
(Atul Kumar Garg)
Additional District & Sessions Judge
South District/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/07.07.2020"
10. No doubt, the learned trial court has, in the case of the present
applicant, rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail, vide order dated
23rd July, 2020; however, the ground on which the prayer has been
rejected does not commend itself readily to acceptance, as the
observation, of the learned trial court, that the role of the present
applicant is "totally different" from that of the other accused, is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
contrary to the case set up in the FIR.
11. In my view, the main accused, Kuldeep Sejwal, having been
granted bail, and other three of the co-accused having been granted
anticipatory bail, by the learned trial court - which order continues to
hold the field - it would not be justifiable to discriminate against the
present applicant so far grant of anticipatory bail is concerned.
12. Besides, were the applicant to be taken in custody, in view of
the above facts, he would, in any case, be entitled to regular bail.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and without commenting on
the correctness of the case of the prosecution or the defence of the
applicant thereto, the applicant is directed to be admitted on bail in the
event of his arrest, subject to furnishing of personal bond of ₹ 50,000/-
along with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
SHO, PS Saket.
14. The applicant is also directed to cooperate with the
investigations and to respond to the summons, as and when called.
15. In the event of any want of cooperation, by the applicant,
during the investigation process, or any misuse by the applicant of the
facility of anticipatory bail granted to him, this facility would be liable
to be withdrawn, and the State would be at liberty to move this Court
in that regard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
16. The applicant is also directed not to leave the territory of Delhi
without obtaining prior permission by this Court, and to furnish, to the
SHO, PS Saket, during the course of the day, the Mobile numbers of
two responsible persons, who can be contacted at any time, by the
police authorities, should the need arise. These mobile numbers would
be kept active, during the course of the investigation.
17. Subject to the above directions, the application is allowed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2020
dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
13:58:51
