Vikram Solanki@Monu v. State NCT of Delhi

1. Bail applications have been preferred on behalfofthe petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.forgrantofanticipatory bail in FIRNo.0285/2021,under Section 452/323/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station: Begumpur. Learned APP for the State informs that Section 392/506/427 I.P.C. were also subsequently invoked. 2022:DHC:5975

2. In brief, as per the case ofthe prosecution, on 18.06.2021 at about 08:30 PM,complainant Vikram Beniwal went to meet his friend Rinku at Sector-24, Rohini, wherein Rinku,Chetan,Rishab and Rohit were present. Atabout 10:00PM,Rinku leftthe flatforsome work and thereafter atabout 10:15 PM,someone knocked at the door.Suddenly Monu,Kala,Minta and Shivam Solanki,belongingtoPooth Kalan Village,along with otherpersons forcibly entered the flat. It is furtherthe case ofthe prosecution that complainant was assaulted ^ andthreatenedto beshotin casehe madenoiseastheassaulterswerehaving weapons. The mobile phones of complainant and Chetan were allegedly broken.Videorecording oftheincident wasalso made byone ofthe accused. FIR No.285/2021,under Sections 452/323/34 I.P.C. was accordingly registered atPolice Station:Begumpur.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that during the course of investigation,statements ofRinku,Chetan,Rishab and Rohit were recorded, and they alleged that accused entered with weapons such as iron rod and baseball batetc.which were used to assaultthe complainant.Theentry ofthe accused isstated to be confirmed by CCTV footage and Sections392/427/506 I.P.C. were subsequently invoked. It is further submitted that petitioner Vikram Solanki was involved in another incidentafterthe registration ofthe presentFIR butpriorto thesame, no involvement has been reported.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are contradictions in the statements ofthe victims and one ofthe co-accused Sahil @ Mintu cannot be seen in the CCTV footage. Petitioners are also stated to havejoined the investigation pursuantto the interim protection granted to the / c petitioners.

5. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised Complainant/injured is stated to have been discharged from the hospital on the same day. Admittedly, petitioners have joined the investigation after interim protection was granted to them by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in the event of arrest,petitioners be admitted to bail onfurnishing a personal bond each in the sum ofRs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe learned trial court and subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall provide their mobile number to the

Investigating Officer(10)concemed/SHO concerned atthe time ofrelease,which shall be kept in working conditions at alltimes. The petitioners shall not switch-off, or change the same without prior intimation to the 10 concerned,during the period ofbail;'

(ii) The petitioners shall not leave the NOT of Delhi without the prior permission ofthe concerned trial court;

(iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity or any illegal activities during the bail period;

(iv) The petitioners shall notcommunicate with,or come into contact with the prosecution witnesses, or any member ofthe victim's family,or tamper with the evidence ofthe case. Applications are accordingly disposed of.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA,J.