Delhi High Court
Shekhar vs State on 5 February, 2020
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3104/2019
SHEKHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: MR. J.K.Sharma and
Siddharth Pandit, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Taran Srivastava
Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent/State with
Insp. Mahesh Kumar and SI
Balbir: DIU/Outer District.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Shekhar in FIR No. 250/2018
u/s. 307/308/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ranholla.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
Bail Appl. no. 3104/2019 Page no.1 of 5
implicated. It is submitted that name of the petitioner is not
appearing anywhere in the FIR. Charge-sheet has been filed against
co-accused in this case and stands committed to the Ld. Sessions
Court. On 28.09.2019, petitioner filed anticipatory bail before the
Ld. Trial Court which was listed for 30.09.2019. However, Sh.
G.N.Pandey, Ld. Presiding Officer directed the petitioner to file
fresh application as it was wrongly marked. The counsel for the
petitioner had, thereafter, withdrawn the application. Thereafter
fresh anticipatory bail application was filed which was listed for
03.10.2019 before the Ld. ASJ. In the said application, IO SI Balbir
Singh filed the status report stating that proceedings under Section
82/83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the petitioner. It is
submitted that the status report furnished by the IO is not correct as
IO had already interrogated the petitioner 2-3 times at length and
also recorded his statements and also verified the mobile status on
the date of the occurrence. It is further submitted that on the basis
of status report filed by the IO, the anticipatory bail application of
the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019 by the Ld.
Trial Court. It is further submitted that petitioner was not present at
Bail Appl. no. 3104/2019 Page no.2 of 5
the spot at the time of commission of offence as he was present on
his duty as a security guard in SBI ATM Village Badli, District
Jhajjar, Haryana. It is submitted that petitioner is not previously
convicted and is ready to join the investigation as and when
required. It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail in
the event of his arrest.
3. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail
petition on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature. He along with co-accused Naveen caused
grievous injuries on the person of complainant Prayag Deep with the
help of sharp weapon and bricks. Ld. APP, has therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. As per prosecution
version on 28.03.2018 at around 10.15 pm when complainant
Prayag Deep was standing outside his shop on main Ranholla Road
and was waiting for his cousin brother namely Manvir, suddenly he
was attacked by one Naveen along with 2-3 more persons with some
sharp weapon and bricks. He got seriously injured in the attack. He
called 100 number and collapsed there. His brother Manvir reached
Bail Appl. no. 3104/2019 Page no.3 of 5
there and got him admitted in Aashirwad Nursing Home, Vikas
Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, IO reached Aashirwad Nursing Home
where the complainant Paryag Deep was found admitted vide MLC
No. 379/18. The injured/complainant was having four stab Injuries
over-chest, abdomen all measuring (2cm X lcm) fracture in nose and
also head injury measuring (4cm X 2cm). The IO recorded the
statement of the complainant and got registered the present FIR
bearing No 250/19, U/s 324/308/506/34 IPC, PS Ranholla. The
complainant was discharged from hospital after 20 days. IO
obtained MLC report wherein the doctor opined the injury caused to
the complainant as 'grievous in nature' and thus section 307 IPC
was invoked in the case. During the course of investigation,
accused Naveen was arrested on 30.05.2019 and during
interrogation, he disclosed that on 28.03.18 at about 10.20pm he
along with his associate petitioner Shekhar had gone to Ranholla
Vihar on Motor Cycle No. HR-13G-2137 Black Colour. He
attacked the complainant with stone and accused Shekhar attacked
the complainant with a knife. Though, it is the defence of the
petitioner that at the time of commission of offence, he was present
Bail Appl. no. 3104/2019 Page no.4 of 5
on his duty in SBI ATM, village Badli, district Jhajjar, Harayana but
this court is of the view that defence of the petitioner cannot be
considered at the time of deciding bail application.
5. The above allegations appearing against the petitioner are
serious in nature. He has not joined the investigation after his name
was disclosed by the co-accused Naveen. He was declared PO by
the Ld. MM vide order dated 13.11.2019 and TIP of the petitioner is
yet to be conducted and weapon of offence i.e. knife is also yet to be
recovered. Keeping in view the above facts and particularly the fact
that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for recovery of
alleged weapon of offence, no grounds for anticipatory bail are
made. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed and stands
disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
Ak
Bail Appl. no. 3104/2019 Page no.5 of 5
