Manish Jajoria v. State of Not of Delhi

1. Vide this common order, I wish to dispose of bail application nos. 1908/2013, 1909/2013 and 1928/2013 as all the bail applications are arising out of a common FIR No.241/13 dated 14.07.2013, u/s 323/354B IPC, P.S. Moti Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2013, DD No.22A was received at P.S. Moti Nagarand thesame was entrusted to SIMukesh Kumar. During enquiry, a preventive action u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C was taken against Ravi Kumar, Anil Bhan and Manish. Meanwhile complainant Rekha also filed a complaint against Ravi Kumar, Anil Bhan, Manish and their parents. She alleged that on 02.07.2013 at about 10 p.m, on hearing the voice of her husband, she came out and noticed that the abovementioned persons were beating her husband. When she tried to intervene, they started beating her also. Petitioners' mother assaulted her with a brick whereas petitioners' father caught hold ofherhand while Ravi Kumar, Anil Bhan and Manish beat her badly. They continued beating her even after she fell down onthe road. Due to this beating, she got nasal bleeding and injuries. Ravi Kumar, Anil Bhan and Manish also tore her suit. Accordingly the above mentioned FIR was registered.

3. It is submittedby learnedcounselfor the petitionersthat the applicant's and complainant's family areclose relatives as applicants' father isthe real Bail Appln Nos. 1908/2013, 1909/2013, 1928/2013 Page 2of[6] / brother of late father-in-law ofthecomplainant and mother of applicant isthe real sister of mother-in-law of the complainant. There is a common wall to their houses which is the bone of contention between the parties. The present dispute is an off-shoot of the property dispute which is simmering between them since the last few years due to which the relationship between the parties has not been cordial and there have been numerous fights between them earlier. The complainant's side is always looking outfor opportunity to grab the common wall of the house. In the late night of 01.07.2013, complainant's husband Kapil Kumar, in an inebriated state abused the applicant and his family due to which PGR was called but no action was taken by the local police as Kapil Kumar apologised for his drunkenness and assured the police to mend his behaviour. Next morning, complainant picked up a fight with the applicant. PGR was called but they sided with the complainant, pursuant to which a Kalandra u/s 107/151 Gr.P.G was prepared in which they were arrested and were convicted and spent some time injail. A complaint was made by the applicants' family but no action was taken. Later on, in order to falsely implicate the applicants and their entire family, the complainant improved her version and filed a belated complaint distorting the facts and giving them a twist of sexual harassment, by making allegations of such nature for the first time after two weeks ofthe incident.

4. It was submitted that Kalandra u/s 107/151 Gr.P.G was prepared and BailApplnNos. 1908/2013, 1909/2013, 1928/2013 Page 3of[6] % the applicants were produced before the Special Executive Magistrate. Complainant also appeared along with her counsel Mr. R.S. Rai. Her statement was also recorded which was confined to physical assault by giving fist blow near her eye and head. There was no allegations of any sexual assault on her. Reference was also made to DD 93B prepared by SI Mukesh Kumar which also discloses that preventive action was required to be taken. Therefore, the aforesaid Kalandra was prepared. He also submitted that it was a case of free fight between both the parties wherein not only the complainant and her husband sustained some injuries. Even the applicants Anil Bhan, Manish and Ravi Kumar had received injuries and they were also medicallyexamined. The Kalandrawas finally disposed ofand the applicants had to remain in jail for two days. Since this did not satisfy the ego of the complainant, therefore, after a lapse of 14 days, the present FIR was got registered levelling allegations for offence u/s 354B IPC. It was submitted that since for the same incident dated 02.07.2013, once the accused persons have been convicted, the registration of the FIR will tantamount to double jeopardy. It was submitted that the applicants are ready to join investigation and offence u/s 354 B IPC is not made out. At the most, the allegations attract the provisions of Section 354B IPC and not the offence u/s 323 IPC, which was a belated one, as such applicants be released on bail. Bail Appin Nos. 1908/2013,1909/2013,1928/2013

5. Application is opposed by learned APP for the State as well as the complainant who referred to the complaint made by the complainant and submitted that in the incident, the complainant suffered injuries. Photograph ofthe complainantwas also filed for showingthat blood oozed from her nose during the incident. It was also submitted that all the accused were also previously involved in two othercases, as such the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

6. As regards involvement of the petitioners in two other cases, it was ^ submittedby learned coimsel for the petitionersthat in boththe cases, the FIR has been quashed as far back in the year 2010.

7. This is only an application for grant of bail and a prima facie view is required to be taken. No opinion on merits of the case are warranted at this juncture, lest it may affect either the prosecution or the defence. It may be required to be seen during the course of proceedings as to why when the proceedings were initially initiated by preparing a Kalandra u/s 107/151 ^ Cr.P.C, pertaining to the incident dated 02.07.2013, no allegations for sexual assault was made by the complainant and why the FIR was lodged after 14 days ofthe incident.

8. So far as the injuries on the person of complainant is concerned, as per the MLC, the injuries were opined to be simple. The FIR itself has been registered u/s 323 IPG which is a belated one. Counsel for the petitionershas

9. Bail ApplnNos. 1908/2013, 1909/2013, 1928/2013 Page[5] of 6 / also placed on record copy of the writings given by some neighbours stating therein that there was no incident of molestation with any lady. The dispute was between family members which was a regular feature between the two families.

9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is ordered that in the event oftheir arrest:-

(i) Petitioners be admitted to bail on their executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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 mobile number to the Investigating Officer.

(iv) They shall not threaten or coerce any prosecution witness nor will tamper with evidence.