Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 11 October, 2019
nd
Date of Decision: 22 October, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1828/2019
PRADEEP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Vikram Panwar, Mr.
Pardeep Dabas, Mr. Vikas
Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha,
Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for
State with Shri Kulbir Singh,
ACP/Chhawla and ASI Satbir
Singh from Police Station-
Dwarka, Sector-28
Ms. Yashima Sharma, Adv. for
the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 1833/2019
DEEPAK GODARA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Vikram Panwar, Mr.
Pardeep Dabas, Mr. Vikas
Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha,
Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for
State with Shri Kulbir Singh,
ACP/Chhawla and ASI Satbir
Singh from Police Station-
Dwarka, Sector-28
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 1 of 10
Ms. Yashima Sharma, Adv. for
the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 1836/2019
HARENDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Vikram Panwar, Mr.
Pardeep Dabas, Mr. Vikas
Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha,
Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for
State with Shri Kulbir Singh,
ACP/Chhawla and ASI Satbir
Singh from Police Station-
Dwarka, Sector-28
Ms. Yashima Sharma, Adv. for
the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
1. This order shall govern the disposal of the applications filed by
the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.43/2019 dated
23.1.2019, under Sections 323/325/452/427/354/201/341/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3(1)(x), (xi), (s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (“the SC/ST Act”), registered at Police Station Sector-23,
Dwarka, Delhi.
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 2 of 10
2. The State has filed the status report before this Court wherein it
is stated that the present case was registered on the complaint of
Ms.Kanta wife of Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar son of Late
Shri Prahlad, both residents of H. No.759, near Community Centre,
village Bharthal, Dwarka, New Delhi, under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. on the directions of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka
Courts, in which they alleged that all the accused persons, namely,
Ashok @ Shoki, Deepak, Sunil, Harender, Hardeep and Pradeep
entered the house of complainants on 11.7.2018 at around 8:00 pm.
Accused Ashok and Deepak caught Ms. Kanta by hair and dragged her
and hit her head into the wall. Thereafter, all the accused persons
started beating the complainant with hockey sticks, sword and fist
blows. It is further alleged that accused Deepak, & Ashok broke the
elbow of the complainant Smt. Kanta and accused Pradeep, Harender,
Hardeep and Ashok had told the complainant that she belongs to a
family of „ Chamar’ and further said to her that “ tu chamari hamare
Jatto ke gharo mai kya kar rahi hai ”. It is further alleged that
thereafter, the accused persons broke all the windows and doors of the
house of the complainant as well as the utensils kept therein. Accused
persons also damaged the CCTV Cameras installed in the premises
and took the DVR containing the CCTV footage with them. A
supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed by the prosecution in
the matter before the Trial Court on 7.8.2019.
3. Nominal roll of the petitioners has also been received.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as
well as learned APP and the learned counsel for the complainant. I
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 3 of 10
have also gone through the police case file and the documents on
record.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submitted that the alleged incident was stated
to have taken place on 11.7.2018 when one of the complainants dialed
at No.100. The version of the complainant was duly recorded by the
PCR at that time and the PCR form itself proves that the petitioners
did not utter any derogatory caste based remarks against the
complainant. Even otherwise, a compromise was effected between the
parties on 12.7.2018 which also vitiates the version of the complainant
in the FIR. It is also submitted that the petitioners Harender, Deepak,
Ashok and Pradeep have been in judicial custody since 27.3.2019,
31.5.2019, 10.7.2019 and 27.3.2019, respectively.
6. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for
Petitioners that the present case is one where two families of a village
have had strained relations for more than two decades over a piece of
land and that the entire case is an afterthought and fabricated with a
malafide intention to falsely implicate the petitioners. The allegations
leveled are extremely bald in nature. It has been alleged that the
accused persons entered the house of the complainant and broke all
the doors, windows and utensils in the house. However, there are no
photographs to substantiate the above said allegations of the
complainant. Further, it has been falsely alleged by the complainant
that the petitioners have taken away the DVR containing the CCTV
footage.
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 4 of 10
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a
bare reading of the complaint made on 11.7.2018 and later, an
application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as well as
statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and in
the FIR, demonstrates that the allegations leveled by the complainant
against the petitioners are after-thought and for that reason, she
improved the same from time to time to implicate the petitioners in the
serious and heinous crimes.
8. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposed the bail
applications of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have
committed serious and grave offences and they are likely to harm and
threaten the complainant and her family.
9. In Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771,
it has been held by the Supreme Court that sine qua non for
application of Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is that the offence
must have been committed against the persons on the ground that such
person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
10. In a recent judgement, titled as Khuman Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh , 2019 SCC Online SC 1104, the Supreme Court
while reiterating the law laid down in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of
Rajasthan (supra) held as under:
“15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must
be such so as to attract the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been
committed against the person on the ground that
such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 5 of 10
deceased was belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled
Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show
that the offence was committed only on the ground
that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste
and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-
accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”
11. It is held in the case of Mukesh Kumar Saini and Ors v. State
(Delhi Administration) , 94 (2001) DLT 241 that Section 34 of the IPC
cannot be pressed into service in offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act.
12. In the case of Daya Bhatnagar v. State , 2004 (109) DLT 915, it
has been held that the public view in Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present
(howsoever small number it may be), should be independent, impartial
and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having
any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant,
would necessarily get excluded.
13. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand , (1977) 4 SCC
308, the Supreme Court held as under:
“2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail,
not jail, except where there are circumstances
suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the
course of justice or creating other troubles in the
shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks
enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not
intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 6 of 10
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is
likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of
justice and must weigh with us when considering the
question of jail. So also the heinousness of the
crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this
case is that the petitioners are not having any
criminal antecedents, there is nothing to suggest that
he has abused the trust placed in him by the court;
his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable
in the sense of his being a desperate character or
unsocial element who is likely to betray the
confidence that the court may place in him to turn up
to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated
to be a young man of 27 years with a family to
maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu
do not militate against the petitioner being granted
bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of
the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be
taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will
report himself before the police station at Baren
once every fortnight.”
14. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court observed that just as liberty is
precious to an individual, so is the society‟s interest in maintenance of
peace, law and order. Both are equally important. The Supreme Court
further observed that personal liberty is a very precious fundamental
right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative
according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
15. Now, reverting back to the case at hand, it can be seen from the
record that in the initial complaint made on No.100, the complainant
was not found to have made any allegations against the petitioners
uttering derogatory caste based remarks against her. Even, in the
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 7 of 10
statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the names of Pradeep and
Harender, stated to have not been mentioned.
16. It is admitted, on instructions, by the learned APP, on the query
of the Court that when the complainant dialed No.100 on 11.07.2018,
her version was recorded and at that time, the said complainant did not
report that the petitioners uttered any derogatory caste based remarks
against her. Again, on the query of the Court, it is admitted by the
learned APP, on instructions, that the entry in the roznamcha on
12.7.2018 demonstrates that a compromise was effected between the
parties and it also did not mention about any casteist remarks. Even,
the MLC of the complainant Kanta on 12.7.2018 at 12:25 am only
demonstrates that the cause of injury is alleged history of physical
assault.
17. Without commenting on the merits of the case, prima-facie, this
Court is also of the view that when the complainant dialed at No.100,
there were no allegations made against the petitioners that they uttered
derogatory caste based remarks against the complainant. Accordingly,
at the initial stage, no allegations regarding uttering derogatory
remarks were made out against the petitioners by the complainant or
by the investigating agency. The petitioners, namely, Harender,
Deepak, Ashok and Pradeep have been in judicial custody since
27.3.2019, 31.5.2019, 10.7.2019 and 27.3.2019, respectively, and even
the arguments on charge have not yet been heard by the Trial Court
and admittedly, nothing is required to be recovered from the
petitioners, at this stage.
18. The aforesaid documents, admissions and discussions itself
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 8 of 10
reveal about the contradictions and the improvements made later on by
the complainants which not only go to the root of the matter but also
are required to be taken into consideration, at this stage, while
considering the sanctity of the other allegations made against the
petitioners, at least, for the purposes of considering the question of
grant of bail to them.
19. It is also held in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
(supra) that any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse
can be taken care of by passing appropriate directions and also by
imposing certain conditions in this regard.
20. Hence, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussions as
well as the age of the petitioners, their socio-economic background,
nature and gravity of the offence, severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction, and likelihood of the offence being repeated and
the other apprehensions which can be taken care of, in view of the
judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (supra), this Court is of
the opinion that bail applications of the petitioners deserve to be
allowed. Ordered accordingly. Petitioners are admitted to bail and they
shall be released, if not required in any other case, on their furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
21. The aforesaid order of bail shall remain operative subject to the
compliance of the following conditions by the petitioners:
i. The petitioners shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by them.
ii. The petitioners shall co-operate in the trial.
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 9 of 10
iii. The petitioners shall not indulge themselves in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
iv. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused.
v. The petitioners shall not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial.
vi. The petitioners shall not leave India without previous
permission of the Trial Court.
vii. The petitioners shall furnish to the IO their respective
current addresses and mobile numbers on which they can
be contacted, within one week after their release on bail
and if there is any change either in the addresses or
mobile numbers in future, they shall promptly inform the
IO as well as the Trial Court.
viii. The petitioners shall report themselves before the police
station once in every fortnight.
22. It is made clear that nothing stated or observed hereinabove
shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case.
23. The bail applications are disposed of accordingly.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
OCTOBER 22, 2019/rk
Bail Appn.1828/2019, 1833/2019 & 1836/2019 Page 10 of 10