Kamal Mahana & Anr v. State

1. This IS an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in FIR No.476/2013 under Section 326/506/120B IPG at P.S. Uttam Nagar.

2. Petitioner No.l is the brother of complainant Ms. Anjali in FIR No.286/2013 dated 3.6.2013. Petitioner No.2 is the neighbourer of complainant in the aforesaid FIR. The aforesaid FIR was registered against the injured ofpresentFIRwith the allegations that on 3.6.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. Ms. Anjali was standing atthe gate ofherhouse along with herparents. The injured ofthe present FIR i.e. Raj Srivastava who was her neighbourer had entered her house and told that he was in love with her and had caught hold ofher hand. He was stopped by her parents as aresult ofwhich the BAIL APPLN. 1942/2013 Page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:8198 people of mohalla collected and turned him out oftheir house. Earlier the injured had filed acomplaint against parents of Anjali that they were not marrymg her with him. On the basis ofher statement FIR No.286/2013 was registered against Raj Srivastava i.e. the injured of the present case on 3.6.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false FIR has been got registered by the injured against the brother of Anjali as well as their neighbourer. It is submitted that the alleged incident is of[3].6.2013 whereas the FIR has been registered on 31.8.2013. It is further submitted that initially in the MLC ofinjured prepared by DDU Hospital the injuries have been opined as simple. However, later on the injured got himselfexamined in Max Hospital wherein the injury has been opined as grievous blunt. It is submitted that in the MLC dated 4.6.2013 the mjured has given the alleged history to the doctor as being beaten by the public. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that considering the background ofthe case, anticipatoiy bail be granted to them.

4. Learned APP as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the application. It is stated that there is a fracture ofnasal bone ofthe complainant as suchpetitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. The four other co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. The MLC ofthe injured has been perused. This is also delay of 88 days in lodging the FIR. In the alleged history given by injured to doctor he has stated being beaten bypublic. BAILAPPLN. 1942/2013 „, Page 2 of[3] o o Considering the background of the case and the totality of facts and circumstances, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing personal bond m the sum of ^15,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe arresting officer/I.O. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the LO. In case the petitioners do not co-operate in the investigation, the State will be atliberty to apply for cancellation ofbail granted to them. Dasti.

DECEMBER 12,2013 kks BAILAPPLN. 1942/2013 VEENABIRBAL,J Page 3 of[3]