Deepak Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. This petition has been filed for seeking regular bail in FIR No.242/2022 under sections 307/323/341/452/IPC at PS Sangam Vihar. The petitioner was arrested on 25th May, 2020 and charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is listed for arguments on charge on 11th February,

2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the prosecution rests on the complaint of one Omkar Gupta (58 years old) who had been admitted in JPN Trauma Centre vide MLC No.500309652/2022 after being injured in a quarrel. As per the MLC he was declared “unfit for statement”. The opinion, as per the doctor in MLC, was injury “wound (1) abrasion over right side of mid tibia region” and the nature of the injury was pending investigation.

3. On 16th April, 2022 the said complainant stated that he lives at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi along with his friend‟s son namely Mr. Atul Sisoda and his wife. For the last two years, the complainant‟s second wife namely Mrs. Pinky Gupta, brother-in-law Mr. Deepak Gupta (the petitioner herein), sister-in-law Smt. Baby Gupta and mother-in-law Smt. Kanti Devi had been pressurising him to transfer his property in their name and since he did not give in to their demands, they registered a false case of POCSO against him and his son. It is noted that FIR No.106/2022 under POCSO Act is pending against the complainant Omkar Gupta which was registered on the complaint of his minor stepdaughter, niece of the petitioner.

4. On 14th April, 2022 at about 10.30 p.m. the complainant along with Atul Gupta and his wife were present at his house when the petitioner along with Baby Gupta, Sunil Negi and other unknown persons barged into his house with sticks and rods. When the complainant tried to stop them, they started attacking him and the petitioner assaulted him with a baseball bat and co-accused Sunil Negi attacked him with a bamboo stick. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered. Later the injury was opined by the doctor as „Dangerous; Kind of Weapon used: Blunt’. Complainant was discharged on 19th April, 2022 (considering that injury on ribs takes time to heal on their own).

5. As per the petitioner, an earlier FIR No. 236/2022 was registered on 15th April, 2022 for offences under section 323/341/506/34 IPC on the complaint of one Mr. Deepak Gupta s/o Dinesh Gupta, friend of the petitioner and co-accused, who had been injured with a sharp object by the complainant Omkar Gupta in same date of incident i.e. 14th April,

2022. There was an eye witness to the said incident, one lady Anita, who was the tenant in the premises. It was stated that on 14th April, 2022 as soon as petitioner with his friend came to the house of Omkar Gupta, he gave a blow with a sharp object to Deepak Gupta s/o Dinesh Gupta and since the blow hit him on the chest and back, he started bleeding and then a quarrel ensued. It is the case of the petitioner that Omkar Gupta was the aggressor and Deepak Gupta s/o Dinesh Gupta had first received injury with sharp object pursuant to which the quarrel ensued and simple injury was inflicted on complainant Omkar Gupta.

6. It is further contended by the petitioner that in FIR No. 242/2022 it could not have been a case of section 307 IPC as injury caused to Omkar Gupta was not likely to cause death of the injured. The petitioner submitted that the present FIR, registered 4 days after the incident, is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by Deepak s/o Dinesh. The ladies alleged to be involved in the dispute namely Kanti Devi, Baby Gupta and Pinky Gupta were interrogated and were bound down without arrest. It is further stated that the petitioner has no previous criminal background.

7. As per the Ld. APP injury was dangerous in nature and was a chest injury as is evident from the FIR which notes the same.

8. As per the status report it is stated that CCTV cameras were found installed at the place of incident and the DVR has seized for data retrieval. It further states that the accused-petitioner Deepak Gupta had surrendered before the police.

9. As per the copy of MLC, it is evident that the case was of assault and wound was an abrasion over the right side of mid tibia region and treatment for the same had been given.

10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also noted the observations made by Krishna Iyer, J., in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,

“1. … the issue [of bail] is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process. … After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right.” The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further made note of their observations in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 as under: