Full Text
Translation output
> 26-22 Sl 26,31 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1896/2013
YUDHVIR SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Advocate and Mr. Gurvinder Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
BAIL APPLN. 1896/2013
YUDHVIR SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Advocate and Mr. Gurvinder Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with W/ASI Shushma, PS, Uttam Nagar
Through Ms. Pujya Kumar, Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person.
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with W/ASI Shushma, PS, Uttam Nagar
Through Ms. Pujya Kumar, Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person.
BAIL APPLN. 1897/2013
RANBIR SINGH Petitioner
RANBIR SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 1898/2013
DILBAGH SE^GH Petitioner 2013:DHC:6876
DILBAGH SE^GH Petitioner 2013:DHC:6876
VERSUS
ThroughMs. KusumDhalla, APP with W/ASI Shushma, PS, ThroughMs. PujyaKumar, Advocate for the complainant with
BAIL APPLN. 1899/2013
MANISH PHORE Petitioner
MANISH PHORE Petitioner
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 1900/2013
TAJ SINGH Petitioner
TAJ SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1901/2013 i
SfflVAM PHORE Petitioner
SfflVAM PHORE Petitioner
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 1902/2013
TARUN KUMAR Petitioner
TARUN KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP W/ASI Shushma, PS, Uttam
Nagar
Nagar
BAIL APPLN. 1906/2013
NAKUL PHORE Petitioner
NAKUL PHORE Petitioner
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 1907/2013
HANEET KUMAR Petitioner
HANEET KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
10.10.2013 Bail AppI. Nos.1896/2013. 1897/2013, 1899/2013, 1900/2013, 1901/2013,1906/2013,1907/2013,1898/2013 and 1902/2013
Vide this common order I shall dispose of bail application filed under Section 354B/427/34 IPG moved by applicants in Bail
Application Nos. 1897/2013, 1899/2013, 1900/2013, 1901/2013,1906/2013, 1907/2013, 1898/2013 and 1902/2013. These all are connected.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of the complainant that on 08.02.2013 at about 10:15 p.m., while her i husband was not at home, the applicants attacked her without any provocation. During the attack they tore her clothes The applicants were in a drunken condition. The applicants further stated that they will striped her, as she pretends to be very reputed and if her son
Aruneet not interrupted, the applicant would have killed her. On the basis ofthis complaint, the FIR No.88/2013 was registered against the applicants under Section 354B/427/34 IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and her husband were constructing stairs in the midst of single lane leading to the houses of the petitioners on 08^*^ February
2013.
The same was objected by few person in the vicinity. The
PGR was called and with the interventions of police the complainant and her husband were constrained to demolish the stairs as the same was blocking the free passage of the rest of the houses thereafter. In order to take revenge this complaint was filed by the complainant. It was submitted that neither in the initial complaint nor in the PGR calls were there any such allegations as have been alleged by the complainant in her statement under Section 164 GrPG, which led to i the dismissal of the application by the learned Sessions Judge. The investigation has already been completed. The chargesheet has already been submitted. The complainant and accused person are close relatives. All the male members of the family have been roped in by the complainant with the intention to harass them. There are no chance oftheir absconding, as such, they be released on bail.
The application is opposed by the counsel for the complainant.
However, on inquiry as to why the accused person were not arrested when the chargesheet has already been submitted in the Court, it was submitted by the investigating officer of the case that since it was a family dispute, Kalandra under Section 107/150 CrPC was prepared and was submitted before SEM Court (West) on 10^^ February 2013, where the matter is pending. The case was registered on 17^^
February 2013. After the investigation was handed over to W/ASI
Shushma, she carried out investigation, which revealed that the parties are closely related to each other and the dispute is regarding a stair case which was constructed by the complainant and which was obstructing the way. Therefore, Mr. Yudhvir Singh, made a call at
10.10.2013 Bail AppI. Nos.1896/2013. 1897/2013, 1899/2013, 1900/2013, 1901/2013,1906/2013,1907/2013,1898/2013 and 1902/2013
Vide this common order I shall dispose of bail application filed under Section 354B/427/34 IPG moved by applicants in Bail
Application Nos. 1897/2013, 1899/2013, 1900/2013, 1901/2013,1906/2013, 1907/2013, 1898/2013 and 1902/2013. These all are connected.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of the complainant that on 08.02.2013 at about 10:15 p.m., while her i husband was not at home, the applicants attacked her without any provocation. During the attack they tore her clothes The applicants were in a drunken condition. The applicants further stated that they will striped her, as she pretends to be very reputed and if her son
Aruneet not interrupted, the applicant would have killed her. On the basis ofthis complaint, the FIR No.88/2013 was registered against the applicants under Section 354B/427/34 IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and her husband were constructing stairs in the midst of single lane leading to the houses of the petitioners on 08^*^ February
2013.
The same was objected by few person in the vicinity. The
PGR was called and with the interventions of police the complainant and her husband were constrained to demolish the stairs as the same was blocking the free passage of the rest of the houses thereafter. In order to take revenge this complaint was filed by the complainant. It was submitted that neither in the initial complaint nor in the PGR calls were there any such allegations as have been alleged by the complainant in her statement under Section 164 GrPG, which led to i the dismissal of the application by the learned Sessions Judge. The investigation has already been completed. The chargesheet has already been submitted. The complainant and accused person are close relatives. All the male members of the family have been roped in by the complainant with the intention to harass them. There are no chance oftheir absconding, as such, they be released on bail.
The application is opposed by the counsel for the complainant.
However, on inquiry as to why the accused person were not arrested when the chargesheet has already been submitted in the Court, it was submitted by the investigating officer of the case that since it was a family dispute, Kalandra under Section 107/150 CrPC was prepared and was submitted before SEM Court (West) on 10^^ February 2013, where the matter is pending. The case was registered on 17^^
February 2013. After the investigation was handed over to W/ASI
Shushma, she carried out investigation, which revealed that the parties are closely related to each other and the dispute is regarding a stair case which was constructed by the complainant and which was obstructing the way. Therefore, Mr. Yudhvir Singh, made a call at
ORDER
100 No. at 6.30 p.m, thereupon the complainant made another PGR call at 10.30 p.m. Investigation further revealed that another case bearing FIR No.635/2011 PS Uttam Nagar, has already registered. A civil case is also pending in Tis Hazari Courts. The applicant Hanit Kumar, had gone to attend the marriage on the date of incident and the photographs were also filed with the chargesheet. There are contradiction in the statement of the witnesses as such the accused / ^ persons were not arrested, there was, however, possibility that in order to put pressure upon the accused persons complainant made this complaint. Since chargsheet has already been submitted and now the next date of hearing is 11^*^ November 2013 as such the applicants are directed to appear before the Court concerned and move appropriate ^ application for bail, till then they be not arrested. Copy of order be given dasti. SUNITA GUPTA, J OCTOBER 10,2013 ss
JUDGMENT