Abhishek v. State (G.N.C.T of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · 18 Jun 2018 · 2018:DHC:8217
A. K. Chawla
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2018
2018:DHC:8217
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications of accused in a grievous injury case involving a sharp weapon, distinguishing the facts from a precedent allowing bail in cases with later-added serious allegations.

Full Text
Translation output
$-32,33,34 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2018
ABHISHEK
Petitioner
Through; Mr.Satish Kumar,Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE(G.N.C.T OF DELHI)
Respondent V Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta,Additional Public
^ Prosecutor for the State with SI Satender Pooni,Police Station DBG
Road,Delhi.
BAIL APPLN. 1419/2018
RAUNAK
Through: Mr.Satish Kumar,Mr.ManojKumar, Advocates
VERSUS
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta,Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI
BAIL APPLN.1420/2018
GAURAV
Through: Mr.Satish Kumar,Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocates
2018:DHC:8217
VERSUS
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta,AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for the State with SI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
18.06.2018 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State seeks to place on record the status report.It is taken'on record.
As per the allegations, the victim was given beatings by three persons.In the FIR itself, use ofa sharp weapon is alleged. FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections 324/341/34 IPG. As per the opinion on the MLC, copy whereof is filed alongwith the status report, the nature ofone ofthe injury is opined to be grievous and use ofa sharp weapon is also opined. This attracted section 326.
Weapon ofthe offence, ofcourse, would be required to be recovered and for thatthe custody invited.
Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon
ORDER
reported in AIR 2015 SC 3090, titled as Bhadresh
Bipinbhai Sheth v. State ofGujarat and Another contended that in a case where the allegations of serious offence of rape came to be subsequently added in a case originally framed under Section 506(2)
IPG, an anticipatory bail was observed to be tenable. Having considered the ratio of the judgment, this court is ofthe considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of that case have no application to the case in hand. That was a case where the complaint was originally made only for the offence under Section 506(2)IPG and the allegation for the commission of the offence under Section
376IPG came to be made much later.In the case in hand,notonly the weapon ofoffence is yet to be recovered but perusal ofthe MLG also shows thatthe victim was badly beaten,whereby he received multiple injuries. No meritfor anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
Dasti. k A.K.CHAWLA,J (VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 18,2018 pkb