Full Text
Translation output
$-35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 605/2012
MAKHAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Khushbir Singh, Advocate.
BAIL APPLN. 605/2012
MAKHAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Khushbir Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Respondent
Through; Ms.Fizani Husain,APP with SI Basant Kumar, P.S. Tilak Nagar.
Respondent
Through; Ms.Fizani Husain,APP with SI Basant Kumar, P.S. Tilak Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MX. MEHTA
04.05.2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 122/2012, under Sections 308/34 IPG, P.S. Tilak Nagar.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Satnam Singh, who alleged that on 26.3.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., when he was at his house, he saw his brother
^ with his two sons i.e. the petitioners standing outside his house. They were abusing in filthy language. As soon as he parked his motorcycle, they all attacked on him with dandas and churis and inflicted injuries on his head. Complainant stated that the petitioners made a murderous attack on him and his family members.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties are
\ 2012:DHC:9698 likely to compromise and theinjuries sustained by thecomplainant were simple in nature.
On the other hand, learned APP submitted that the murderous attack was made on the head of the complainant wherein he sustained 6-7 injuries. She submittedthat the deadly weapons such as churis were used in the offence and that weapons were still to be recovered. Learned APP submitted that the bail of the co-accused persons has also been dismissed by the learned ASJ vide his order dated 11.4.2012.
Having regard to the fact that the murderous attack was made by the petitioners without any provocation on the vital part i.e. head of the complainant and further that, weapons used in the offence are due to be recovered and that applications of the accused persons has also been dismissed recently by the learned ASJ on 11.4.2012, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The incident is of 26.3.2012 and no compromise has so far been effected. Unless the compromise was effected, the plea that the parties are likely to compromise was not available for consideration of bail. Hence dismissed.
MAY 04, 2012 M.L. MEHTA,J r 2012:DHC:9698
04.05.2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 122/2012, under Sections 308/34 IPG, P.S. Tilak Nagar.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Satnam Singh, who alleged that on 26.3.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., when he was at his house, he saw his brother
^ with his two sons i.e. the petitioners standing outside his house. They were abusing in filthy language. As soon as he parked his motorcycle, they all attacked on him with dandas and churis and inflicted injuries on his head. Complainant stated that the petitioners made a murderous attack on him and his family members.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties are
\ 2012:DHC:9698 likely to compromise and theinjuries sustained by thecomplainant were simple in nature.
On the other hand, learned APP submitted that the murderous attack was made on the head of the complainant wherein he sustained 6-7 injuries. She submittedthat the deadly weapons such as churis were used in the offence and that weapons were still to be recovered. Learned APP submitted that the bail of the co-accused persons has also been dismissed by the learned ASJ vide his order dated 11.4.2012.
Having regard to the fact that the murderous attack was made by the petitioners without any provocation on the vital part i.e. head of the complainant and further that, weapons used in the offence are due to be recovered and that applications of the accused persons has also been dismissed recently by the learned ASJ on 11.4.2012, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The incident is of 26.3.2012 and no compromise has so far been effected. Unless the compromise was effected, the plea that the parties are likely to compromise was not available for consideration of bail. Hence dismissed.
MAY 04, 2012 M.L. MEHTA,J r 2012:DHC:9698
JUDGMENT