Full Text
BAIL APPLN. 1969/2013 |i
MUNNI DEVI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu ]with Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs.
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Singh.
MURARI PARSAD Petitioner STATE
Through:Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu with ]^. Ravi Kumar, Advs. i
Through: Ms. Fizani Hussain, AI^P for the State with SI Sandeep Singh.;
05.12.2013
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of Bail Application Nos. 1969/2013 and 2015/2013 filed by Munni Devi and Murari Parsad, inasmuch as, both the applications have been filejd for grant of 2013:DHC:6912 i M anticipatory bail in case FIR No.434/2013 u/s 323/354/34 IPC, P.S. Aman Vihar, Delhi.
2. It is submitted by Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate for the applicants that on 22.09.2013, Murari Prasad was entangled ina fight with the neighbours, namely, Rajesh, his brother Rakesh, Pappi and Anil on a issue of fetching water from a water tanker. They started mercilessly beating Murari Prasad and his son. Applicant Munni Devi stepped in and pleaded the said persons to stop beating her husband and son. However, they manhandled her in an unruly and disgraceful manner resulting in outraging her modesty and further caused injury on her head. As such FIR No. 431/2013 dated 22.9.2013 u/s 323/354/34 IPC was lodged against them. One of the accused persons, namely, Rakesh approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail. However, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court on 24.09.2013. As a counterblast, on the same day, in connivance with local police and local property dealers, the FIR in question was got registered against the applicants and their minor son, aged about 14 years old. It is submitted that so far as Munni Devi is concerned, no offence u/s 354 IPC is made out and Section 323 IPC is bailable one. as such she is entitled to the protection of the Court,. Even as regards Murari Prasad, the FIR is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by Nirmala Devi and in fact was filed in retaliation after the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application filed by Rakesh. Furthermore interim protection was granted to the petitioners. They have joined investigation and are no longer required for the purpose of investigation, assuch they bereleased onbail. 3, Application is opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature and the accused are not entitled to be released on bail. It was, however, not disputed that Himanshu @Golu, minor son ofthe petitioners have been granted anticipatory bailbythe Sessions Court.
4. Keeping in view the totality ofthe facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that inthe eventof their arrest;- (i). Petitioners be admitted to bail on their executing personal bond in the sum ofRs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe concerned I.O./SHO;
(ii) They shall join investigation as and when called for by the I.O;
(iii) They shall furnish their address as well as their inobile number
(iv) They shall not threaten or coerce any prosecution witness
DECEMBER 05,2013 as SUNITA (o