Delhi High Court
Shalu vs State Nct Of Delhi on 13 May, 2022
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on: 09.05.2022
Order delivered on: 13.05.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 1399/2022
SHALU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr.Prasanna,
Ms.Priyal Garg and Ms.Heena Tyagi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.P. Singh, APP for State.
Mr.Rahul Baisoya, Proxy counsel for
Mr.Aman Usman, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. An application has been filed by petitioner seeking early hearing in
Bail Application No. 1399/2022. The applicant has preferred the Bail
Application under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking interim bail for a period of 90
days in FIR No.77/2019 under Sections 302/307/120-B/34 IPC and Sections
27/54/59 of the Arms Act Police Station I.P. Estate for taking medical care
of her daughter who is stated to be in 8 th month of pregnancy. The expected
date of delivery is stated to be 19.06.2022 and an early date is prayed for
since the application is stated to have been listed for 05.08.2022 vide order
dated 06.05.2022.
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:32:48
2. The Bail Application No. 1399/2022 is disposed of at this stage since
detailed submissions have been made.
3. In brief, on 20.04.2019, complainant Pinki, a transgender along with
her chelas Gangesh Jha and Deepak were fired upon at 04:45 PM by two
boys on a motorcycle. Due to firing, Gangesh Jha, Pinki and Deepak
sustained bullet injuries. Gangesh Jha was subsequently declared brought
dead and Pinki and Deepak sustained bullet injuries. Accordingly, the
present FIR was registered.
During the course of investigation, Ankit @ Paul and Ashu @ Vishal
were arrested on 21.04.2019 wherein it was disclosed that Shalu (i.e. the
petitioner), Shanker and Kale hatched the conspiracy to kill Gangesh Jha and
Pinki and made a contact with accused Ankit @ Paul for consideration of
Rs.5 lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who belongs
to transgender community got married with Shanker around 20-22 years
back, who is co-accused in the present case and was having a daughter
namely Komal from his first wife, who had expired after giving birth to the
child. He further submits that regular bail application already stands
withdrawn on 13.04.2022 and interim bail was earlier granted to the
petitioner vide order dated 07.06.2021 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli
on medical grounds. It is also pointed out that an application for cancellation
of interim bail was filed by the complainant on the ground that the
complainant had been receiving threats from petitioner Shalu and as
observed vide order dated 28.07.2021, the application was directed to be
taken along with the regular bail application. An interim bail is also stated to
have been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.04.2020 by the
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:32:48
learned Trial Court for a period of 30 days for looking after her daughter.
Reference is also made to the medical report of the daughter of petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the application has been vehemently opposed by
the learned APP for the State. It is stated that the petitioner/accused is
involved in a previous case of attempt to murder, though on bail in the said
case. Further, the petitioner is stated to have jumped interim bail in April,
2020. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in two other cases
namely FIR No.243//2020 dated 01.07.2020 under Sections
323/341/506/195-A/34 IPC as well as in FIR No.742/2018 under Sections
307/324/34 IPC, Police Station Mehrauli.
6. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised. It cannot be
ignored that after the grant of interim bail vide order dated 07.06.2021, an
application had been filed by the complainant regarding receiving of threats
from petitioner Shalu. The said application was directed to be taken with the
main application which has been thereafter withdrawn by the petitioner. The
learned Trial Court while rejecting the interim bail appears to have rightly
taken into account all the relevant factors and has observed that since the
complainant/victim/witnesses are yet to be examined, there is a possibility
that petitioner may temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
7. I am of the considered view that keeping the past conduct of the
petitioner, gravity of offence and serious allegations, it may not be
appropriate to release the petitioner on interim bail at this stage.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
May 13, 2022/A
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:14.05.2022
14:32:48
