Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal v. State

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of three bail applications bearing No.620/2015, 623/2015 and 625/2015 filed by Ramesh Chand Jaiswal, Sujeet Chand Jaiswal and Santosh Kumar respectively apprehending their arrest in case FIR No.284/2014.

2. FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Rohit Sachdeva wherein he alleged that on 16.01.2014 he had gone to Patna with his friend Mukesh and Kuldeep as Mukesh had to appear in a court case at Patna. At Patna, Mukesh was beaten by some persons when he had gone to appear as a witness in a case. On 18.01.2014, he along with his friends Mukesh and Kuldeep returned from Bihar. After a few days he started receiving threatening calls from unknown persons from Bihar. On 27.04.2015 at about 3.30 p.m, he was returning to his house after withdrawing money from Axis Bank ATM and when he reached near Lok Vihar Apartment, three persons came from behind on an unknown bike and they started beating him. When he enquired as to why they were beating him, they replied that they wanted to teach him a lesson. When the complainant checked his belongings, the gold chain that he was wearing and Rs.10,000/- kept in his upper pocket were found missing.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Mukesh Jaiswal who is the friend of the complainant. Mukesh Jaiswal had filed a divorce petition against his wife Chandni. The three accused persons Sujeet Jaiswal, Ramesh Chand Jaiswal, and Santosh Kumar are elder brother of Chandni, cousin brother of Chandni and maternal uncle of Chandni respectively. Chandni got registered FIR u/s 498A/34 IPC at Bihar. Anticipatory bail was granted to mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-inlaw of Chandni. However, application of Mukesh Jaiswal was dismissed. Arrest of Mukesh Jaiswal was stayed by Patna High Court, who referred the matter to Mediation Centre. Thereafter the High Court passed an order to file joint petition for divorce by mutual consent whereby Mukesh Jaiswal was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on the first motion and Rs.[5] lakhs on second motion to Chandni. At the time of first motion, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was paid by Mukesh Jaiswal to Chandni by way of draft. However Mukesh Jaiswal did not pay Rs.[5] lakhs to Chandni and also did not file second motion petition u/s 13B ofHindu Marriage Act, as such his application was dismissed. It was further submitted that the contents of the FIR are totally false. No prudent person can believe such a plea that the assailants wouldcomefrom Bihar to threatenthe complainant and then give beatings. Moreover, number of FIRs alleging same facts have been lodged against the petitioners. The complainant had not even gone to Patna which is clear from the fact that Mukesh Jaiswal had lodged a complaint at Patna on 17.01.2014 alleging beatings given to him by the petitioner and at that time he had stated that he had come alone from Delhi to attend to a date in the Court meaning thereby that the allegations of the complainant that he had gone along with Mukesh Jaiswal to Patna for appearing as a witness is false. The petitioners are ready to join investigation, as such they be granted protection against their arrest.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the application on the ground that the MLC of the complainant was obtained and the result of injury was opined as simple blunt. During the course of investigation, statement of eye witness Aman was recorded who disclosed the description of the alleged persons and their specific roles. Rohit also disclosed in his statement that the person who had beaten him on 27.04.2014 could be Ramesh Chand Jaiswal, Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal and Tj Santosh Kumar. It is submitted that the bike used by the alleged persons are yet to be recovered. TIP of all the accused persons is also to be conducted. In this regard it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since as per the allegations made by the complainant, the accused wereknown to him from before, therefore, no TIP is required.

5. In the initialFIR, names of the accused persons were not given and it was alleged that the complainant could identify them. Moreover the other eye witness Aman Malhotra who disclosed the description of the accused persons also requires to identify the accused persons in the TIP. The submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is at best defence of petitioner which will be required to be considered during the trial of the case. That being so, there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The bail applications are accordingly dismissed.

APRIL 28,2015 as RTA GtfPTA, SUNITA