Delhi High Court
Kuldeep vs State N.C.T Of Delhi on 27 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.02.2020
% Judgment pronounced on: 27.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3046/2019
KULDEEP ..... 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 quarrel had taken place between 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,
complainant again 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 construction 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 31.08.2019 and no useful purpose would be
served by keeping him in JC when other accused persons 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 vehemently
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 submitted that
petitioner has avoided arrest for about 14 months and in case he is
released on bail his whereabouts would not be known. 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.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record.
6. In the instant case three co-accused persons have
already been released on bail. Accused is in judicial custody
since 31.08.2019. No role has been assigned to the petitioner in
the FIR. As far as question of preparation of forged documents
are concerned there are no such allegations against the petitioner
in this FIR. Hence, no useful purpose would 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.
7. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
AK
