Full Judgment Text
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : MAY 13, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 553/2016
SUNIL GUPTA
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Mayank Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Mr.Prashant Tanwar, Advocate, for
the complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 661/2016
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Mayank Sharma, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Mr.Prashant Tanwar, Advocate, for
the complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 988/2016
MOHD TOKIR
..... Petitioner
Bail.Appl.No.553/2016 & connected matter Page 1 of 4
Through : Dr.Chaudhary Shamsuddin Khan,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Mr.Prashant Tanwar, Advocate, for
the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.65/16
under Section 308/354B/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bindapur.
Status report is on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Manoj Kumar Gupta
and Sunil Gupta urged that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
FIR No.73/2016 has already been lodged against the complainant party for
inflicting injuries to the petitioners and their family members. The
complainant party has been granted anticipatory bail in the said FIR
No.73/2016. They were the aggressors. The complainant along with nine
associates had arrived at their house and they all were armed with ‘dandas’.
They all inflicted injuries and also outraged the modesty of ‘X’ (assumed
name). It is further urged that the FIR in question has been lodged in
Bail.Appl.No.553/2016 & connected matter Page 2 of 4
connivance with the police though intimation about the occurrence to the
PCR was conveyed by the petitioners at first instance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Mohd.Tokir urged that no
role has been assigned to him. The petitioner was not armed with any
weapon. His mere presence along with co-accused is not enough to decline
anticipatory bail.
4. The bail is opposed by the respondents. It is urged that the
petitioners in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to the
victims when they demanded their ‘Adhar Card’ being misused by the
petitioners.
5. I have gone through police files of both the FIRs. FIR 65/16
was lodged on Kiran’s statement on 22.01.2016 at about 9.20 a.m. The
incident occurred on 21.01.2016 at around 7.00 p.m. Record reveals that the
victim Kiran and other injured persons were taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital at around 8.00/9.00 p.m. and they were medically examined there.
Nature of injuries suffered by Kiran and Sandeep have been opined
‘grievous’ in nature. The petitioners did not explain as to how and in what
manner Kiran and Sandeep sustained injuries on their bodies. Specific role
was assigned by the complainant to the petitioners in inflicting injuries by
‘dandas’, and fists/kick blows. It is not in dispute that the quarrel had taken
place when the complainant and her family members had demanded the
‘Adhar Card’ of her mother-in-law from the petitioners which was allegedly
being misused by them.
6. FIR No.73/16 was lodged by ‘X’ on 23.01.2016 after lodging of
FIR No.65/16 on 22.01.2016. ‘X’ implicated ten individuals to have inflicted
injuries to her and her family members. The FIR was lodged only under
Bail.Appl.No.553/2016 & connected matter Page 3 of 4
Section 323/354/34 IPC. Subsequently, Section 452/325 IPC was added as
Sunil Gupta was found to have suffered fracture in hand.
7. The Trial Court had declined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners vide order dated 2.2.2016. The petitioners remained absconding
and did not join the investigation. They subsequently filed another
anticipatory bail application which resulted in dismissal on 05.03.2016.
8. Considering the gravity of the offence, I find no sufficient
ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their bail applications
are dismissed.
9. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of
the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2016
s a
Bail.Appl.No.553/2016 & connected matter Page 4 of 4