Delhi High Court
Harvinder Singh vs State N.C.T Of Delhi on 27 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 19.02.2020
% Pronounced on: 27.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 218/2020
HARVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P.Singh, Mr. Deepak
Singh and Mr. Manish Singh,
Advocates.
versus
STATE N.C.T OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Rinku Bhakar, PS
Bawana.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section
439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 320/2018 under
Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bawana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an information was
received regarding a quarrel with a lady at House No. 2A,
Krishna Vihar Colony, Bawana, on 19.07.2018. After inquiry, it
was revealed that a quarrel had taken place between the two
parties for a disputed property measuring 1 Bigha and 1 Biswa of
Khasra No. 182/9 situated at Krishna Vihar Colony, Bawana,
Delhi. The complainant was shifted to M.V. Hospital, Pooth
Khurd, Delhi and his MLC was conducted and doctor opined in
the MLC "alleged history of physical assault". On 24.07.2018,
complainant handed over a written complaint to the investigating
officer alleging therein that his brother, namely, Nitin Agarwal
had purchased the property in question vide registered sale deed
in the year 1992 and he used to visit the property on routine basis.
On 19.06.2018, he found some people carrying out excavation
work using JCB on their land. The complainant was told by them
that the plot belonged to one Mohan Singh and they were doing
work on his instructions. The complainant intimated about the
same to his uncle and on the next day he along with his family
members visited the property. He found few people present on
the plot and two of them introduced themselves as Mohan Singh
and Surender Pehalwan and they asserted their ownership and on
seeing papers they told the complainant that they were mistaken
and would verify the details at their end. Complainant asked
Mohan Singh and Surender Pehalwan to show their papers and a
meeting was fixed. According to the complainant, on 21.06.2018,
the complainant visited the plot. He found that 7-8 persons were
sorting/soaking the bricks. On inquiry from the local people, it
transpired that construction was planned by Mohan Singh and
Surender Pehalwan, so he reported the matter to the local police.
On 19.07.2018, he along with his driver visited the property to
gauge any future constructions and tried to inquire about the same
from 2-3 laborers from nearby locality. Around 2-2:30 P.M.,
according to the complainant, accused Krishan along with 3-4
accomplices came in an SUV type car and started beating the
people present at site with pipes and iron rods. According to the
complainant, those persons also attacked him and gave him
severe blows with plastic pipe on his back, so the complainant ran
away from there. It is alleged that thereafter Mohan Singh,
Surender Pehalwan, Krishan along with 5-6 more persons reached
the plot and they were having iron rods, knives, guns in their
hands. It is alleged that Mohan Singh was carrying a pistol while
Surinder Pehalwan was carrying an iron rod and a gun was tied to
his trousers. It is alleged that Krishan and his accomplices started
hitting the complainant with pipes and rods. He was also given
fists blows and kick blows. It is alleged that Mohan Singh and
Surinder dragged him out of the plot and put a tamancha on his
stomach and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that
someone snatched his gold chain from his neck and Mohan Singh
took out Rs.1,50,000/- from his pocket and his mobile phone was
also snatched.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations
against the co-accused Mohan Singh are more serious in nature
than what have been made against the petitioner, rather the
petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no role has been
assigned to him. It is further submitted that petitioner is in
judicial custody since 02.09.2019 and three co-accused with
similar or more serious allegations have been released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State, assisted
by the complainant who is present in person, has voluntarily
opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the
status report. It is argued that the allegations against the
petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is further submitted
that the complainant was badly beaten and had received grievous
injuries on his person. It is further argued that the petitioner
along with other co-accused persons had prepared forged and
fabricated documents to take possession of the plot of the
complainant as accused persons are professional land grabbers. It
is also submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender and has
been declared as „Bad Character‟ of the Police Station Bawana.
5. In rebuttal, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of
disclosure statement. He further submits that petitioner is on
bail in all the cases and last case registered against him was in the
year 2011. It is also submitted that petitioner is no more on
surveillance role of the police of concerned Police Station
Bawana.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record.
7. In the instant case three co-accused persons have
already been released on bail. Accused is in judicial custody
since 02.09.2019. No role as been assigned to the petitioner in
the FIR and petitioner has been arrested on the basis of disclosure
statement. There are no allegations of forgery against the
petitioner in the present FIR. There are no allegations against the
petitioner that he has tried to temper with evidence or threatened
the witness in any manner. Hence, no useful purpose will be served
by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. Accordingly, it is
ordered that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like
amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
8. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2020/AK
