Delhi High Court
Sh Chetan @ Goli vs State on 4 July, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2693/2020
Order reserved on : 05.11.2020
Date of decision : 04.07.2022
SH CHETAN @ GOLI ..... Applicant
Through: Mr. Ajay M. Lal, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP
for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The applicant vide the present application under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C., 1973 seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR
No. 178/2020, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 307/308/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of the
Arms Act, 1959, submitting to the effect that he has been falsely
implicated in the case, and that the Investigating Agency has been
manipulating the investigation by recording false statements.
2. Inter alia the applicant submits that he has a fixed abode of
living and there are no chances of his absconding nor tampering with
the prosecution evidence in any manner. Inter alia the applicant
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
submits that there is not a single averment against the applicant in the
FIR that was lodged initially and allegations of firing and of the
possession of a revolver are against the co-accused Kali @ Rajinder
with there being no allegations against him nor are there any
allegations against the applicant of having fired on the complainant
Nikhil at any stage. Inter alia the applicant submits that whereas as
per the FIR, there are six persons allegedly involved, the police has
implicated eleven persons in the case as per its status report. The
applicant further submits that he is not a previous convict and if he is
granted the concession of bail, he shall not mis-utilize that liberty.
Inter alia, the applicant submits that the object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventive and is only to secure the presence of the
accused at his trial.
3. Notice of the application was issued to the State and vide order
dated 16.09.2020 which is presently in operation, subject to the
applicant not leaving the city, joining the investigation as and when
required by the Investigating Officer, keeping his mobile phone on at
all times and dropping a pin on the Google map to ensure that his
location was available to the Investigating Officer and not committing
any offence whatsoever, he was granted the interim relief of
prevention of arrest till the date 21.09.2020, which order dated
16.09.2020 was extended on 21.09.2020 till 29.09.2020 and vide order
dated 29.09.2020 was extended till the date 05.11.2020 and vide order
dated 05.11.2020 was extended till pronouncement of orders on the
application. In terms of the order dated 16.09.2020, the status report
dated 18.09.2020 was submitted by the State. In terms of the order
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
dated 29.09.2020, the State has submitted the copy of the charge sheet
that has been filed in the instant case.
4. As per the status report dated 18.09.2020 submitted under
signatures of the SHO, PS Subzi Mandi, it has been stated that on
14.06.2020, an information vide DD No. 44A was received at PS
Subzi Mandi which was marked to SI Jaivir, who along with his staff
reached the spot near the Balaji Mandir, Ghanta Ghar, where it was
learnt that the injured persons have been shifted to the Hindu Rao
Hospital, and on reaching there, it was learnt by the Investigating
Officer that none of the injured were there, in as much as, they had
gone to the Police Station because Hindu Rao Hospital had been
declared a Hospital for Corona Patients. The injured Nikhil S/o Ved
Prakash was medically examined vide MLC No. 910/2020 at the
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital on which the Doctor had opined, "A/H/O
Physical Assault by (06) known person at around 6.00 pm at Punjabi
Basti Sargam Wala Hotel as told by patient himself L/E (1) reddish
abrasion Over Front Right Knee 3cm*2cm (2) Diffuse Reddish
abrasion below right eye (+) 3cm*3cm Name of injuries O/R". Inter
alia, as per this status report, it is indicated that qua the injured
Akshay, S/o Ved Prakash, the brother of the complainant Nikhil, he
was examined vide MLC No. 909/2020 on which the Doctor opined,
"A/H/O Physical Assault by 5-6 known person at around 6.00 pm at
Punjabi Basti Sargam Wala Hotel as told by patient himself L/E (1)
Lacerated wound over left parietal region of scalp
2cm*0.25cm*0.5cm (2) Lacerated wound over Mid-Parietal region of
scalp 3cm*0.25cm & skin deep (3) incised looking wound over left
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
thigh Anterolateral aspect 1.5cm*0.3cm*2cm depth (4) incised wound
over left hip back side 0.5cm*0.25cm*5.5cm depth (5)tenderness over
left forearm nature of injuries O/R". The Investigating Officer is
stated to have then met the complainant/injured Nikhil, who in his
statement allegedly stated that on 14.06.2020 at around 4:00 PM, he
was going to his house from his mother's house along with his son and
his wife Anjali in a Maruti Breeza Car No. DL1CAA6692 and when
they reached near the Gudar Basti, Aryapura, six boys came there on
three scooties and two boys, who were on a red colored scooty,
brought their scooty in front of his car and stopped his car. Inter alia,
it has been stated through the statement that the person who was riding
the scooty broke the front mirror of his car and the pillion rider whose
name was Kali, who is the real brother of BC Sonu Sardar of Subzi
Mandi and was known to the complainant, opened the door of the
complainant's car, pulled him out and all the boys who had come on
the scooty started beating him and then the complainant's wife Anjali,
who was sitting in the car, came out of the car to save them, then Kali
even pushed her also and immediately after that all the boys fled away
and the complainant stated that he came back to his mother's house i.e.
Balmiki Beda and told this incident to his brother Akshay, who along
with his brother Tushar, Govind and the complainant went to Kali's
House at Malka Ganj to ask him as to why he had done this, and when
they reached at Ghanta Ghar Road, Opposite Balaji Mandir and Dass
Dawakhana at about 6.00 PM, then again those six boys came on three
scooties who had beaten him earlier and stopped their battery
rickshaw. Inter alia, as per the statement of the complainant, Kali @
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Rajinder fired two bullets with a pistol in the air and the third was
fired on the complainant but luckily the bullet passed away from his
head, and after that Kali attacked on his brother's head with a butt of
his pistol, and when his brother tried to escape, two boys, who were
with Kali, caught his brother and Kali took out a knife from his right-
side belt and attacked with a knife on his brother's left thigh and
secondly on his brother's left hip, and when he tried to save his brother
then the boys, who were with Kali, started beating him with fists and
legs and Tushar and Govind escaped from there. As per the statement
made by the complainant, a boy who had a stick in his hand also beat
them, and after that all those boys fled away from the spot. Thereafter,
the complainant and his brother went to the hospital for treatment. As
per the FIR lodged on the statement of Nikhil i.e., the complainant,
Kali @ Rajinder along with his associates had fired on him with the
intention to kill and they had also beaten his brother. As per the status
report, the FIR was thus registered on the statement of the complainant
Nikhil i.e., the FIR No.178/2020, PS Subzi Mandi, under Sections
307/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
5. It has been stated through the status report that during the course of
investigation, four fired empty cartridges were found at the spot which
were taken into police possession, blood was found on the spot and
taken in a gauze and two vehicles i.e., a scooty and a motorcycle,
which were used in the crime, were also seized. The statement of
Akshay, the brother of the complainant, is also indicated to have been
recorded, wherein he stated in his statement under Section 161 of the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Cr.P.C, 1973, that Chetan @ Goli, i.e., the applicant herein, fired on
his brother Nikhil @ Nikku and other accused persons were identified
by Akshay as being Kali @ Rajinder, Chetan @ Goli, Ishpreet @ Ishu,
Karanjeet, Himanshu Batra, Deepanshu Batra, Mayank Kardam,
Nitesh, Rinku @ Kuldeep Nigam and Faheem and the statement of
Akshay and a supplementary statement of the complainant was also
recorded. As per this status report, the applicant Chetan @ Goli
along with other accused persons had beaten the complainant and
Akshay very badly and that the applicant had also threatened to kill
Akshay if he informed the police, and that the applicant had also fired
on Nikhil, but somehow, he had been saved. A statement under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 of Nikhil the complainant dated
15.06.2020 is indicated to have been recorded by the State, copy of
which has been annexed with the status report in which Nikhil the
complainant stated that at about 4-5 p.m. near Guddad Basti, the main
persons involved in quarrel on 14.06.2020 were Kali, Ispreet @ Ishu,
Karanjeet, Chetan @ Goli and Himanshu Batra, and that Chetan @
Goli, the applicant, along with other accused persons had beaten the
complainant and Akshay very badly and had fired on the complainant.
6. The State further submits that during the investigation of the case, the
CCTV footages were obtained and shown to the complainant Nikhil
and to Akshay on 20.06.2020 and after watching the CCTV footages,
the complainant Nikhil and Akshay his brother, had identified Chetan
@ Goli i.e. the applicant herein who was wearing a white T-shirt and a
black cap, and was the pillion rider on the motorcycle following their
Breeza Car during the quarrel the first time.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
7. It is submitted through the status report of the State that during the
investigation, Sections 323/341/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
were also invoked and an accused Mayank Kardam was arrested at the
instance of the injured Akshay on 01.07.2020 and raids were
conducted at the house and other hide outs of all remaining persons
but they were not found present there and that they were avoiding their
arrest deliberately, and thus Non Bailable Warrants were obtained
from the learned Trial Court, but none of them joined the investigation
of the case and process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 has been
initiated against the accused persons.
8. The status report dated 18.09.2020 submitted by the State further
indicates that during the investigation on 18.08.2020, the accused
Rajinder @ Kali and Kuldeep @ Rinku were arrested in the case and
one pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused Rajinder
@ Kali, and three days' police custody remand of the accused persons
was obtained from the Court and sincere efforts were made to arrest
the remaining accused persons. Rajinder @ Kali and Kuldeep @
Rinku disclosed that Chetan @ Goli was with them in this firing
incident and Chetan @ Goli and his other friends had beaten the
complainant and his brother. The said accused persons had allegedly
further disclosed that the applicant had fired upon Nikhil, and the
accused Ispreet and Karanjeet were arrested on 24.08.2020, and the
accused Himanshu Batra and Dipanshu Batra were arrested on
08.09.2020. As per the said status report dated 18.09.2020, seven
accused persons have been arrested but Chetan @ Goli the applicant,
Nitesh, Shivraj and Faheem were not joining the investigation of the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
case and were avoiding their arrest. Inter alia, the State has submitted
that Chetan @ Goli and Nitesh were avoiding their arrest deliberately,
and that proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 were
initiated against Chetan @ Goli and Nitesh and the report of the
unexecuted proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 had
been submitted in the Court on 10.09.2020.
9. Inter alia, as per the status report, the applicant Chetan @ Goli
is involved in three other FIRs i.e.,
a) FIR No.315/13, PS Kashmiri Gate, under Sections 394/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860,
b) FIR No.131/14, PS Kashmiri Gate, under Sections
186/224/225/332/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and,
c) FIR No.118/20, PS Kotwali, under Sections 323/341/336/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of
the Arms Act, 1959.
10. The State has further submitted through its status report that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant was required to recover the
pistol which was used in crime. The State has thus vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the applicant seeking grant of bail.
11. During the course of submissions made on 29.09.2020 qua the
application filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail, a
submission was made by the State that the charge sheet in the matter
had been submitted without the recovery of the weapon of offence.
On behalf of the applicant it was submitted that the printout of the
CCTV footage that had been submitted with the status report dated
18.9.2020 of the State showed the petitioner allegedly on a scooty
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
with another co-accused at 5:20 p.m., whereas, the incident is stated to
be of around 4:00 p.m. and that the same itself falsified the version of
the prosecution and the complainant.
ANALYSIS
12. Without any observations on the merits or demerits of the trial
that may take place in the instant case, it is essential to observe that it
has been stated in the charge sheet, copy of which has been filed by
the State that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 was obtained from the Executive Engineer PWD (CCTV &
WiFi) Department, 13th Floor, ITO Delhi of the CCTV footage in
relation to the CD marked A1 qua the CCTV footage of the recording
made by two cameras of the Delhi Government at House No.4921,
Aryapura, near Gudar Basti, which showed the members of the gang
of Kali @ Rajinder, i.e., the applicant Chetan @ Goli, Ispreet @ Ishu,
Karanjeet, Himanshu Batra and Shivraj, who were seen on three
scooties and one motorcycle and were seen coming from the opposite
side of the car, and on identifying the complainant seated in the car,
went in front of the car and turned their vehicles and started following
the car of the complainant Nikhil @ Nikku, and as per this CCTV
camera, these persons could be seen only following the complainant's
car and the complainant informed that after following him from some
distance, the said persons had given effect to the incident.
13. The avowed contention on behalf of the applicant is that even if
the applicant was seen in the CCTV footage of the CD marked A1, the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
same is only allegedly to the effect that he was following the
complainant and does not show any assault committed by him.
14. It is essential to observe that through the statements under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 of the complainant Nikhil dated
15.06.2020 and of his brother Akshay dated 15.06.2020, who are both
the injured in the instant case, as well as of Nikhil the complainant and
Akshay his brother dated 20.06.2020, it has been stated allegedly
therein to the effect that the applicant was the person who had beaten
and assaulted Nikhil, the complainant, the most and had threatened the
complainant and his brother that if they informed the police about the
same, then Kali the co-accused would kill them. Both Nikhil and
Akshay through their statements have allegedly stated that the
applicant used to supply pistols and cartridges to Kali, the accused
who had fired on them. Both Nikhil the complainant and Akshay his
brother have, through their statements under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 dated 15.06.2020, categorically stated that the applicant
had fired on the complainant but he was not hit, though Karanjeet and
Kali, the other two co-accused had assaulted Akshay with a knife and
Nitesh had hit with a bat and Ishu assaulted with a Danda.
15. The statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 dated
20.06.2020 of the complainant Nikhil and of his brother Akshay relate
allegedly to the CD marked A1 which they are stated to have been
shown by the police in which they have both identified the applicant
herein as being the person in a white t-shirt and a black cap seated
behind a person seated in a striped shirt and a red cap and both the
complainant Nikhil and his brother Akshay identified the applicant as
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
being the person who had also fired on the complainant Nikhil in the
second incident in which he had been saved and the bullet had not hit
him. Both the complainant Nikhil and his brother Akshay have
allegedly identified the persons seen in the CCTV Footage as being
persons residing in the area near Malka Ganj and who roam around
there, whom they know from before and both the complainant and his
brother have stated that all these boys had together attempted to kill
Nikhil the complainant.
16. The State through its charge sheet has also further submitted to
the effect that during the course of investigation, it was learnt that the
Mobile No.9711783443 registered in the name of Sapna, the sister of
the applicant, which was being utilized by the applicant and was on
that day i.e., 14.06.2020 utilized by the applicant to make a call at
16.18 hours to the Mobile No.8287320221 to the co-accused
Karanjeet whose location was found at Mori Gate and the applicant at
16.26.57 hours was found to be at Malka Ganj as per the location of
the mobile, whereafter the applicant at 16.25 hours had telephoned the
co-accused Himanshu Batra on Mobile No.9871729986 when their
locations were found to be at Sabzi Mandi, Main Bazaar, and at
17.01.55 hours, the applicant Chetan @ Goli the co-accused was
found to be in a conversation with Karanjeet the co-accused on Mobile
No.8287320221 who was found to be located at that time at Sabzi
Mandi, Aryapura, where the first quarrel had taken place. The charge
sheet filed by the State further states to the effect that at 17.37 hours,
the location of the applicant Chetan @ Goli was at Malka Ganj, that
Rajinder @ Kali with Mobile No.7834903030 have spoken to the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
applicant Chetan @ Goli at Mobile No.9711783443 and Rajinder @
Kali in his disclosure statement had informed that at that time the
complainant Nikhil and the brother of the complainant Akshay had
come with their complaint to his house and at that time, he, Rajinder
@ Kali, had called Chetan @ Goli, the applicant, and his other friends
on their mobiles and at that time Chetan @ Goli came on a motorcycle
and participated in the incident and went away. As per the charge
sheet, the CDR details of the applicant Chetan @ Goli indicate that
Shivraj, who was using the Mobile No.8076684846 belonging to his
sister Divya, had on 14.06.2020 vide this mobile called the applicant
Chetan @ Goli at 16.20 hours on Mobile No.9711783443 and at that
time, the applicant was at his house, whereas the location of Shivraj
was at Mori Gate, whereafter, the motorcycle of Shivraj, the co-
accused, was utilized in the incident and Shivraj @ Raj had taken the
applicant Chetan @ Goli on his motorcycle to Malka Ganj, where the
incident had taken place, and after the incident, Shivraj and Chetan @
Goli, the applicant, had come back to Mori Gate.
17. Undoubtedly, it is the avowed contention of the applicant that
the entire prosecution version is based on surmises and that even in the
CCTV footage, that has been collected by the Investigating Agency,
there is nothing to show the applicant at the time of the alleged assault.
Qua this submission, it is essential to observe that it has been stated
categorically in the charge sheet that the CD marked A4 of the
recording of the area of the Main Ganta Ghar Road could not clearly
capture the place of the incident because the camera was at a distance
from the spot. In these circumstances, presently at this stage, taking
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
into account the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 of
the complainant Nikhil dated 15.06.2020 and that of Akshay dated
15.06.2020 and the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973
of the complainant Nikhil and his brother Akshay the other injured
dated 20.06.2020 after they saw the CD marked A1, whereby they
allegedly identified the applicant as being seated behind the co-
accused Shivraj and identified the applicant as being the person who
had beaten them the most and had threatened them not to inform the
police of the incident and who had also fired at the complainant but
the shot had not hit him, are circumstances which at this stage cannot
be dislodged and cannot be disbelieved in view of the factum that
there is undoubtedly a CCTV Footage through CD marked A1, which
has been collected of the date 14.06.2020 qua the first incident, in
which the applicant and the other co-accused had stopped their bikes
in front of the car of the injured the complainant, and the applicant,
through the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 of the
injured Nikhil and his brother, has been identified to be one of the
alleged assailants who attacked them and who also attempted to shoot
at Nikhil the complainant.
18. In these circumstances, in as much as the State seeks to recover
the weapon of offence from the applicant and taking into account the
previous adverse antecedents against him, the alleged propensity
towards crime of the applicant, presently, cannot be overlooked.
19. The principles laid down in the catena of verdicts relied upon on
behalf of the applicant, i.e., on the verdicts in "Sarla Devi versus State
of NCT of Delhi" Bail Appln No. 608/2015, a verdict dated
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
27.05.2015, "Balveer Singh Bundela versus The State of Madhya
Pradesh" M.Cr. C. No. 5621/2020, a verdict dated 12.05.2020,
"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi versus State of U.P. and another"
Criminal Appeal No. 159/2012, a verdict dated 16.01.2012, "Ketan
Suresh Pawar and another versus Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant and
another" SLP (Crl.) No. 4158/2019, a verdict dated 27.08.2019,
"Ramesh versus State of Haryana" CrlMisc No. M-1203 of 2014, a
verdict dated 14.03.2014 and "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors." AIR 2011 SC 312, a verdict dated
02.12.2010 are not in dispute. However, the facts of the instant case
as put forth through the prosecution version are not in pari materia
with the facts of the cases relied upon.
CONCLUSION
20. In these circumstances, the prayer made by the applicant
seeking grant of anticipatory bail is declined and the interim protection
granted to the applicant vide order dated 16.09.2020 in force till date
in terms of order dated 05.11.2020 is thus withdrawn.
21. Nothing stated hereinabove shall however amount to any
expression on the merits or demerits of the trial that may take place.
22. The application is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
JULY 04, 2022
HA
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:05.07.2022
15:47:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
