Delhi High Court
Chitranshu Pandey vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 17 January, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.01.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 82/2025 & CRL.M.A.1133/2025
CHITRANSHU PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Yadav,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNSS') has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated
10.12.2024 passed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereafter 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 84 of BNSS
in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 340/2024 for offence
punishable under Section 110/351(2)/331(8)/191/3(5)/61(2)A/70(1)/
74(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter 'POCSO Act'), registered at
Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on
11.08.2024, a PCR call vide DD No.21A regarding quarrel was
received at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, upon which the police
officials had reached the spot, where they had found that injured
complainant 'K' and Smt. Sunita had been taken to the LBS Hospital
through PCR van. Thereafter, the complainant 'K' alongwith her
mother and brother had come to the police station and her statement
was recorded wherein she stated that there was a property dispute
between them and her Uncle (Tau) namely Ram Vilash and due to
this reason, Ram Vilash alongwith his three sons namely Chitranshu,
Priyanshu and Betu had come to her house earlier and quarrelled with
them and had also threatened them with dire consequences. She
further stated that on 04.08.2024, Ram Vilash and his three sons had
also attacked her father in Sector-12, Noida. She further alleged that
on 11.08.2024, her uncle had sent 10-12 men equipped with "danda"
to assault her family members at 03:10 AM, who had attacked her
family members with intention to kill every member in the house and
they had dragged the complainant and her mother to street and
attacked them, due to which both of them had sustained head injuries.
It is further alleged in the FlR that although her uncle and his sons
were not present at the spot, but the complainant suspected that the
attack was planned by Ram Vilash and his three sons. Thereafter, the
complainant and her injured family members were taken to the
hospital and their MLCs were prepared. Accordingly, the FIR in the
present case was registered. During the course of investigation, the
brother of the complainant produced one pen-drive containing the
CCTV footage of the crime scene. Some of the accused persons
namely Vikas, Muzahid, Shivam and Kapil were arrested on
14.08.2014. The statement of complainant was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
3. In the present petition, the case set out by the petitioner is that
on 13.09.2024, the learned Sessions Court had issued Non-Bailable
Warrants against him and thereafter, had issued process under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against him on 26.09.2024. Subsequently, vide
the impugned order dated 10.12.2024, the petitioner was declared
proclaimed offender and it was observed that he was evading arrest
and concealing himself. The petitioner now seeks setting aside of the
order declaring him as proclaimed offender.
4. However, this Court notes that the petitioner herein had moved
on anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court on
16.08.2024 and vide order dated 17.08.2024, he was granted interim
protection and was directed to join investigation. Concededly, the
petitioner herein had joined investigation on 23.08.2024 as well as
29.08.2024, and had informed the I.O. that he was at his home, in
Lucknow, on the day of alleged incident and not in Delhi. The pen
drive of the CCTV footage of the house of petitioner in Lucknow was
also handed over to the I.O. However, as apparent from the record,
the I.O had thereafter moved applications seeking NBWs and
initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C against the
petitioner herein, even though the petitioner had joined investigation
at least on two occasions.
5. It is also not in dispute that after the dismissal of anticipatory
bail application by the learned Sessions Court on 04.10.2024, the
petitioner herein had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail on 22.11.2024. The impugned order in this case was passed on
10.12.2024. Clearly, though the petitioner herein was not granted any
interim protection by this Court, however, vide order passed today in
BAIL APPLN. 4321/2024, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to
the present petitioner, taking into account the fact that it is prima
facie clear that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim
recorded at the time of registration of FIR and before the learned
Magistrate, with regard to the presence of the petitioner and his role
in the alleged offence, and also the fact that CCTV footage of the
incident does not support the prosecution's case and the CCTV
footage of the petitioner's home in Lucknow reveals his presence at
his home on the date of incident and not in Delhi.
6. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, and considering the fact that the petitioner had earlier joined
investigation pursuant to grant of interim protection by the learned
Sessions Court, and in the interest of justice as this Court has found it
a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to quash
the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 declaring the present petitioner
as a proclaimed offender. Ordered accordingly.
7. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending
application, if any, also stands disposed of.
8. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 17, 2025/ns
