Full Text
Translation output
$-36,37 & 38 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 96/2013
LALIT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Hasibuddin, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 96/2013
LALIT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Hasibuddin, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Mandeep, Police Station Vasant Vihar
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Mandeep, Police Station Vasant Vihar
BAIL APPLN. 97/2013
AVINASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
AVINASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Vihar
BAIL APPLN. 98/2013
UMESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
UMESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 & 98 of2013 Page 1
\ 2013:DHC:7613
\ 2013:DHC:7613
CORAM:
Vihar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR /o
ORDER.21.01.2013 Crl.
M.A. No.686/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.96/2013
Crl.
M.A. No.687/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.97/2013
Crl.
M.A. No.688/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.98/2013
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Bail Application No.96/2013 Bail Application No.97/2013
Bail Application No.98/2013 Petitioners in the above captioned three petitions are seeking pre arrest bail in FIR No. 419/2012, under Sections 186/353/323/332/341/34 ofthe IPC, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
Counsel for petitioners state that infact, incident is of road rage and that the complainant/ first-informant and the concerned police officials had passed lewd remarks against Pooja, sister of petitioners, which had led to a quarrel with the complainant and the police officials, who had started manhandling aforesaid Pooja and had kept beating petitioners as well.
It is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that the instant FIR does not give correct version and the true version is contained in the complaint
(Annexure P-3) made by aforesaid- Pooja to police and that petitioner-
Avinash has been already discharged in the theft case and petitioners had not snatched the gold chain and wrist watch of complainant/ first
Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 & 98 of2013 Page 2 t
• complainant nor had taken it away and so, denial of pre arrest bail to petitioner by the court of Sessions is not justified.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners are ready to join investigation of this case and so, they deserve the concession ofpre arrest bail.
Upon Notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State opposes grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners in view of gravity of offence committed by petitioners and has placed on record copy of Status
Report disclosing involvement ofpetitioners in other criminal matters.
In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with the applications for pre arrest bail have been reiterated by the Apex Court in these words:-
'30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind ofoffences usher in an impediment in establishment oforderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue ofimposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality ofcircumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale ofcollective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty.
Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty ofthe accused.'
Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 &98 o/2013 Page 3
Upon hearing both sides, on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the Status Report, I find that the version putforth on behalf of petitioners by their sister in the complaint
(Annexure P-3) is a counter blast to the FIR in question, whose authenticity is being investigated. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that petitioners have previous involvement, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners in above captioned three petitions.
In view of the aforesaid, the above captioned three bail
(_ applications are dismissed with direction to petitioners to surrender forthwith. If petitioners upon surrender seek regular bail, the same would of course be considered by the court concerned purely on merits and without being influenced by this order:
With aforesaid observations, these applications are disposed of.
JANUlf...:tY 21, 2013 "' rs Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 & 98 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR /o
ORDER.21.01.2013 Crl.
M.A. No.686/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.96/2013
Crl.
M.A. No.687/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.97/2013
Crl.
M.A. No.688/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Bail Appln.No.98/2013
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Bail Application No.96/2013 Bail Application No.97/2013
Bail Application No.98/2013 Petitioners in the above captioned three petitions are seeking pre arrest bail in FIR No. 419/2012, under Sections 186/353/323/332/341/34 ofthe IPC, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
Counsel for petitioners state that infact, incident is of road rage and that the complainant/ first-informant and the concerned police officials had passed lewd remarks against Pooja, sister of petitioners, which had led to a quarrel with the complainant and the police officials, who had started manhandling aforesaid Pooja and had kept beating petitioners as well.
It is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that the instant FIR does not give correct version and the true version is contained in the complaint
(Annexure P-3) made by aforesaid- Pooja to police and that petitioner-
Avinash has been already discharged in the theft case and petitioners had not snatched the gold chain and wrist watch of complainant/ first
Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 & 98 of2013 Page 2 t
• complainant nor had taken it away and so, denial of pre arrest bail to petitioner by the court of Sessions is not justified.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners are ready to join investigation of this case and so, they deserve the concession ofpre arrest bail.
Upon Notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State opposes grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners in view of gravity of offence committed by petitioners and has placed on record copy of Status
Report disclosing involvement ofpetitioners in other criminal matters.
In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with the applications for pre arrest bail have been reiterated by the Apex Court in these words:-
'30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind ofoffences usher in an impediment in establishment oforderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue ofimposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality ofcircumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale ofcollective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty.
Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty ofthe accused.'
Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 &98 o/2013 Page 3
Upon hearing both sides, on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the Status Report, I find that the version putforth on behalf of petitioners by their sister in the complaint
(Annexure P-3) is a counter blast to the FIR in question, whose authenticity is being investigated. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that petitioners have previous involvement, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners in above captioned three petitions.
In view of the aforesaid, the above captioned three bail
(_ applications are dismissed with direction to petitioners to surrender forthwith. If petitioners upon surrender seek regular bail, the same would of course be considered by the court concerned purely on merits and without being influenced by this order:
With aforesaid observations, these applications are disposed of.
JANUlf...:tY 21, 2013 "' rs Bail Application Nos. 96; 97 & 98 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page4
JUDGMENT