Full Text
Translation output
v„ -
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 597/2011
RAJU JITENDER @ GOGI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Adv.
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 597/2011
RAJU JITENDER @ GOGI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.
S.I. Bharat Bhushan, P.S. Ali pur.
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.
S.I. Bharat Bhushan, P.S. Ali pur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.05.2011 By this petition, the Petition seeks bail in case FIRNo.295/2010 under
Sections 307/34 IPG and 25/54/59 Arms Act registered at P.S. Alipur on the complaint ofPraveen Kumar alias Parveen Malik.
In nutshell, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner by the complainant are that on September, 2010 at 9.30 pm, Sunil, Arun, Popi, kuka, Monu and the present Petitioner came to his office, where Sandeep and Ravinder were already present, and started abusing and threatening
Ravinder and Sandeep with regard to some previous dispute pertaining to
Student Union Election. When the complainant along with Sandeep and
Bail Appl. 597/2011 2011:DHC:7002 Ravinder started going from there in their vehicles, one Bunty alias Ravi ^ came there and joined the accused persons. One of the accused persons started firing on Ravinder, who was sitting in his car, resulting in the breaking of the windshield of Ravinder's vehicle. Bunty told his friends to fire shots and all of them started firing. After opening the window ofthe.car of Ravinder, Kuka and Sunil shot fire on him by Desi Katta. Complainant and Sandeep in order to save Ravinder ran towards the car then Bunty fired at Sandeep and the present petitioner fired a shot at the complainant due to which the complainant received injury on his hand.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the report of the Doctor has been received and as per his opinion, the injury was found to be a deep abrasion on the centre of left palm. There was no pellet or bullet at or around abrasion, clinically the patient's first aid treatment and X-ray left hand showed no evidence of bullet or pellet injury. Thus, as per the opinion, the injury was not by bullet or pellet. He ftirther states that co-accused Ravi
Bhardwaj, who was also having the same role and had hit Sandeep by a gunshot and as per medical opinion, the injury of Sandeep was not an injury by bullet or pellet and clinically opined as a simple injury, has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the Petitioner is also entitled to grant ofbail on the ground ofparity.
Learned APP for the State on the other hand states that as per the statement of the injured, it is clear that the Petitioner gave a gun-shot injury, which hit at the hand and resulted in abrasion. Though the medical opinion has been received, however, at this stage, statement of the injured cannot be brushed aside. It is stated that the present accused person is also involved in another case and, thus, the present application for bail be dismissed.
I have heard leaned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the FIR and statement of the injured show that the allegations against the Petitioner are that there was a fight over the previous dispute between the parties pertaining to the Student Union Election and on the date of incident at about 9:30 PM, the Petitioner and co-accused persons started abusing and threatening the complainant and his friend, who were present at the shop of the complaint. Thereafter, when the complainant and his friends started going from there, one Bunty alia Ravi joined the accused and some of them started firing at the Ravinder. During this time, the complainant and his friend Sandeep while trying to save Ravinder also received gunshot injuries. However, the medical opinion shows that there is no evidence of gunshot/pellet or bullet. The injury on the person of the complainant is a deep abrasion on left palm and the injury received by
Sandeep is opined to be simple injury. Thus, I deem it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, bail is granted to the
Petitioner, subject to his furnishing of a personal bond of ^50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount of which one should be of his family member, subject to satisfaction ofthe learned trial Court.
It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits ofthe case during trial.
The application is disposed of accordingly. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J MAY 23, 2011 vkm
23.05.2011 By this petition, the Petition seeks bail in case FIRNo.295/2010 under
Sections 307/34 IPG and 25/54/59 Arms Act registered at P.S. Alipur on the complaint ofPraveen Kumar alias Parveen Malik.
In nutshell, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner by the complainant are that on September, 2010 at 9.30 pm, Sunil, Arun, Popi, kuka, Monu and the present Petitioner came to his office, where Sandeep and Ravinder were already present, and started abusing and threatening
Ravinder and Sandeep with regard to some previous dispute pertaining to
Student Union Election. When the complainant along with Sandeep and
Bail Appl. 597/2011 2011:DHC:7002 Ravinder started going from there in their vehicles, one Bunty alias Ravi ^ came there and joined the accused persons. One of the accused persons started firing on Ravinder, who was sitting in his car, resulting in the breaking of the windshield of Ravinder's vehicle. Bunty told his friends to fire shots and all of them started firing. After opening the window ofthe.car of Ravinder, Kuka and Sunil shot fire on him by Desi Katta. Complainant and Sandeep in order to save Ravinder ran towards the car then Bunty fired at Sandeep and the present petitioner fired a shot at the complainant due to which the complainant received injury on his hand.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the report of the Doctor has been received and as per his opinion, the injury was found to be a deep abrasion on the centre of left palm. There was no pellet or bullet at or around abrasion, clinically the patient's first aid treatment and X-ray left hand showed no evidence of bullet or pellet injury. Thus, as per the opinion, the injury was not by bullet or pellet. He ftirther states that co-accused Ravi
Bhardwaj, who was also having the same role and had hit Sandeep by a gunshot and as per medical opinion, the injury of Sandeep was not an injury by bullet or pellet and clinically opined as a simple injury, has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the Petitioner is also entitled to grant ofbail on the ground ofparity.
Learned APP for the State on the other hand states that as per the statement of the injured, it is clear that the Petitioner gave a gun-shot injury, which hit at the hand and resulted in abrasion. Though the medical opinion has been received, however, at this stage, statement of the injured cannot be brushed aside. It is stated that the present accused person is also involved in another case and, thus, the present application for bail be dismissed.
I have heard leaned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the FIR and statement of the injured show that the allegations against the Petitioner are that there was a fight over the previous dispute between the parties pertaining to the Student Union Election and on the date of incident at about 9:30 PM, the Petitioner and co-accused persons started abusing and threatening the complainant and his friend, who were present at the shop of the complaint. Thereafter, when the complainant and his friends started going from there, one Bunty alia Ravi joined the accused and some of them started firing at the Ravinder. During this time, the complainant and his friend Sandeep while trying to save Ravinder also received gunshot injuries. However, the medical opinion shows that there is no evidence of gunshot/pellet or bullet. The injury on the person of the complainant is a deep abrasion on left palm and the injury received by
Sandeep is opined to be simple injury. Thus, I deem it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, bail is granted to the
Petitioner, subject to his furnishing of a personal bond of ^50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount of which one should be of his family member, subject to satisfaction ofthe learned trial Court.
It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits ofthe case during trial.
The application is disposed of accordingly. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J MAY 23, 2011 vkm
JUDGMENT