Full Text
Translation output
$--36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 606/2012, Crl.M.A. 5423/2012
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner
Through: MrJaved Alvi, Advocate.
BAIL APPLN. 606/2012, Crl.M.A. 5423/2012
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner
Through: MrJaved Alvi, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain,APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
04.05.2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 79/2012, under Sections 452/323/341/506/34 IPC, P.S. Baba Hari Dass Nagar.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with two associates, duly armed with broken bottles of whisky and base ball attacked the complainant
Mukesh at about 1.30 a.m. on 14.4.2012 when the complainant was asleep in his house. It is alleged that the petitioner and co-accused persons, while continuing the beatings to the complainant, put the complainant in their car and thereafter, threw him on the back seat. The petitioner later took him to his house and from there, to the hospital and got him medically treated and then, thereafter, they left him outside of one Vijender's office with the threat that in case, he calls the police, he would be killed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
2012:DHC:9700 9/ and the complainant are friends and are working together in the same factory. It ^ is submitted that it was the complainant, who was drunk. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused persons duly armed with broken bottles of whisky and baseball attacked the complainant at the dead mid-night after entering into his house while he was asleep and further, that he along with his associates not only attacked him with the broken bottles of whisky, but put him in their car and ultimately threw him in the open unattended, would show the criminal mindset of the petitioner and his co-accused. The weapons of the offence are still to be recovered and the other co-accused persons, who are absconding are yet to be arrested. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence dismissed.
MX. MEHTA,J MAY 04, 2012 2012:DHC:9700
04.05.2012 This is a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail in case FIR
No. 79/2012, under Sections 452/323/341/506/34 IPC, P.S. Baba Hari Dass Nagar.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with two associates, duly armed with broken bottles of whisky and base ball attacked the complainant
Mukesh at about 1.30 a.m. on 14.4.2012 when the complainant was asleep in his house. It is alleged that the petitioner and co-accused persons, while continuing the beatings to the complainant, put the complainant in their car and thereafter, threw him on the back seat. The petitioner later took him to his house and from there, to the hospital and got him medically treated and then, thereafter, they left him outside of one Vijender's office with the threat that in case, he calls the police, he would be killed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
2012:DHC:9700 9/ and the complainant are friends and are working together in the same factory. It ^ is submitted that it was the complainant, who was drunk. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused persons duly armed with broken bottles of whisky and baseball attacked the complainant at the dead mid-night after entering into his house while he was asleep and further, that he along with his associates not only attacked him with the broken bottles of whisky, but put him in their car and ultimately threw him in the open unattended, would show the criminal mindset of the petitioner and his co-accused. The weapons of the offence are still to be recovered and the other co-accused persons, who are absconding are yet to be arrested. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence dismissed.
MX. MEHTA,J MAY 04, 2012 2012:DHC:9700
JUDGMENT