(appearance not given) v. STATE & ANR.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition, filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, in respect of FIR No.302/2011, registered under section 307/34 IPC at P.S. Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. 2011:DHC:4222

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had inflicted injuries on the injured with the help of a churri, while as the medical record shows that the injuries were caused by an ustara and, therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

3. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the other two co-accused have already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner may also be extended the benefit of grant of bail.

4. Mr.Naveen Sharma, learned APP, has opposed the bail application, on the ground that the injuries were caused by the petitioner with the help of a churri and it is a case of attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention. It has also been stated that the recovery of knife is yet to be effected from the accused.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP. I have also gone through the order dated 12.07.2011, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Saket, New Delhi, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order, dated 12.07.2011, passed by the learned ADJ.

6. Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused and the facts of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.

7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. August 18, 2011 SS