Delhi High Court
Ali Quazim vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 April, 2022
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on: 20.04.2022
Order delivered on: 21.04.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 774/2022
ALI QUAZIM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Alok Bhachawat, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with SI Satyam Pandey, P.S.: Lodhi
Colony.
Mr.Kamal J.S. Manh, Advocate for
complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 914/2022
SALMAN MEHDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Alok Bhachawat, Mr.Shailendra
Singh and Mr.Ishaan Jain, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
with SI Satyam Pandey, P.S.: Lodhi
Colony.
Mr.Kamal J.S. Manh, Advocate for
complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN.774/2022 & 914/2022 Page 1 of 6
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. These are two bail applications, both under Section 438 of Cr.PC filed
on behalf of the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.68/2022
registered under Sections 392/448/506/34 of IPC at Police Station Lodhi
Colony.
2. In brief, as per the case of the Prosecution, complainant Zahrul Hasan
filed a complaint on 14.02.2022 at Police Station Lodhi Colony, wherein he
alleged that on 12.02.2022 while he was in Police Station Lodhi Colony,
accused namely (i) Mohammad Asgar @ Pappu, (ii) Tahseen Mohammad,
(iii) Salman Mehandi (petitioner in Bail Application No.914/2022, (iv)
Akhtar Abbas and (v) Ali Quazim (petitioner in Bail Application No.
774/2022) and their 2-3 friends entered in the Rajdhani Nursery forcefully.
Further, they said to nursery staff that local police is with them and they
must vacate the nursery premises immediately. At aforesaid time of incident,
one of his nursery staff namely Aman Saxena was present.
3. It is further the case of the Prosecution that Mohammad Asgar took
out a pistol, Akhtar Abbas took out a knife, Salman Mehandi was carrying a
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
pistol and intimidated the nursery staff. Mohammad Asgar and Akhtar Abbas
went behind the cash counter of nursery and took documents of nursery
related with High Court, bill book of nursery, voucher pad and other articles.
Complainant also stated that he has some CCTV footage recording and also
stated that he has filed a complaint on 13.02.2022 to the Commissioner of
Police through mail.
Accordingly an FIR No.68/2022 dated 15.02.2022 under Sections
392/448/506/34 of IPC was registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the dispute is
related to the management of a Wakf property and orders already stood
passed in favour of the petitioners. It is also contended that the FIR was
lodged after a gap of about three days. It is also vehemently contended that
FIR has been concocted and the allegations in the statement of Aman Saxena
allegedly recorded on 16.02.2022 regarding pointing of pistol by accused
Salman Mehandi were missing in the initial complaint. Reference is also
made to the earlier status reports filed during the course of bail applications
of other co-accused. It is urged that since there was previous enmity between
the parties regarding the management and the dispute is as to handing over of
possession, allegations have been concocted as a counter to civil dispute.
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
Reliance is also placed upon Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Ors. passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281-
7282/2017, decided on 29.01.2020 wherein reference has also been made to
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565.
5. On the other hand, the applications have been vehemently opposed by
the learned APP for the State. Learned APP submits that interim protection
had been granted to accused Ali Quazim vide order dated 08.03.2022 passed
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, considering the role of the
applicant but it is submitted that interim protection was declined by this
Court considering the fact that recovery of pistol had to be made from
accused/applicant Salman Mehandi.
4. I have heard the parties at length and given considered thought to the
contentions raised. There is no dispute to the fact that there is a litigation
between both the parties as to the management of Wakf property and some
orders have been passed in favour of the accused party regarding handing
over of the management. However, it has been pointed out by the learned
APP for the State that period of 30 days for handing over of the management
had still not expired on 12.02.2022 and further an appeal has been preferred
in which the orders have been stayed. The fact cannot be lost sight of, as
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
pointed out by the learned APP for the State, that since the complainant was
in Police Station on 12.02.2022 itself, the e-mail had been forwarded to the
Commissioner of Police regarding the entire incident on which the FIR
appears to have been finally recorded on 15.02.2022 on the basis of a written
complaint submitted on 14.02.2022 at Police Station Lodhi Colony. The
apparent deviation in the role ascribed to Salman Mehandi in FIR and the
statement of Aman Saxena who was present at the spot can be appropriately
looked into during the course of investigation. It cannot be ignored that
Salman Mehandi also appears to be involved in other FIRs. The list of
articles which are alleged to have been removed is also stated to have been
provided in response to notice under Section 91 of Cr.PC.
5. Considering the fact that petitioner Ali Quazim has already joined the
investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar vide order dated 08.03.2022 and his role, no
purpose shall be served by denying the benefit of anticipatory bail to
petitioner Ali Quazim, at this stage. Accordingly, in the event of arrest,
petitioner Ali Quazim be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
concerned. Further, the petitioner Ali Quazim is directed to join the
investigation, as and when directed. The Bail Application No.774/2022 is
accordingly disposed of.
However, considering the role ascribed to accused Salman Mehandi
and the fact that recovery of pistol is to be effected, I am not inclined to
release him on anticipatory bail. The Bail Application No.914/2022 is
accordingly dismissed.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to expression of opinion
on merits.
The applications are accordingly disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
April 21, 2022/A
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:21.04.2022
17:36:18
