Full Text
*^^n/THE HIGH COTJRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RAIT. APPLN. 1108/2015
ALAM@BOLA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain and
Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
+ RATT. APPLN. 1109/2015
CHHOTE KHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain and
+ ttATTAPPT.N. 1110/2015
SALEEM Petitioner
Through: Mr. M^ir Akhtar Hussain and
0/„ 03.06.2015
CRT MA. (Exemption't in BAIL APPTi. 1108/2015
CRL MA8700/2015 (Exemption^ in BAIL APPL. 1109/2015
S2015lF----'>'.-n!.nRAILAPPL.X110JMS
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAILAPPLN. 1108/2015,1109/2015&
1110/2015 ^
2015:DHC:10658
BAn. APPL. N"' iins/2ni5. i]n'»ff.nis &ni0/20i5
ORDER
1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 422/2015 under Sections 308/323/452/506/34IPC registered atPS Neb Sarai, Delhi.
2. The petitioners Saleem andChotte Khan have already been convicted underSection304IPC for committingculpablehomicideofthe father ofthe complainant Bhure Singh and the appeal against the said judgment is pendingbeforethisCourtwhereintheirsentenceshavebeensuspended.
3. During the period, when the sentences of Saleem and Chotte Khan have been suspended, it is alleged that the petitioners along with Rais and Mobincamenearthe houseofthecomplainantarmedwithLathi,Dandaand Pipes and caused injuries to five members of the complainant's family. Though, the injuries are simple but all the five members including the two women have received injuries. Across FIRhas also been registered against complainant for the reason that two persons from the side ofthe petitioners i.e. Mobin and Rais have also received simple injunes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the findings of tiie learned Trial Court that the petitioners have been convicted under Section 307 IPC is wholly incorrectand the petitionershave filed an affidavitinthis respect.
5. Bethat as itmay. itis notdisputed thatthough notunder Section 307 IPC butthe petitioners ChhoteKhan and Saleemhave beenconvicted under Section 304 IPC as noted above. BAILAPPLN. 1108/2015,1109/2015& 1110/2015 ^
6 A perusal ofthe record would reveal thatthe incident occurred thehouse ofthe complainantandnotnearthe house ofthe accused^T us apparentlythePetitionersweretheaggressorsarmedwithLath,Dandaan T'LearnedcounselforthepetitionersclaimsparitywithRaisandMobin on the ground that they have been granted regular bail. Even Rais an Mobinhavebeen grantedregularbail andnotanticipatoryball.
8. Ifind no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. are dismissed accordingly. JUNE 03,2015 j MUKTA GUPTA (VACATION JUDGE) Paee 3 of[3]