Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
ASHWANI NATH @ AASHU ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Ms Anjali Sharma, Mr
Deepak Bashta, Mr Manish Lamba and Mr Sankalp
Sangar.
For the Respondent : Mr Sunil Dalal and Mr Chandan Rai Chawla, Advocates for complainant.
SI Khajam Singh, PS Paharganj.
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.246/2017 under Sections 307/323/427/34 IPC, Police Station Paharganj.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant along with his friends had gone to a Bar to drink liquor and thereafter, when they were standing outside the Customer Service Centre of Punjab National Bank, petitioner along with his other friends came on spot 2018:DHC:3086 and started beating the victim with kicks, fists and even used bricks and due to fear, a friend of the complainant ran away from the spot. The petitioner not only assaulted complainant but also the victim. The victim sustained grievous injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that it is a case where the victim was the aggressor and he had harassed the petitioner and even threatened to teach him a lesson. Telephonic conversation is being relied upon. It is further contended that the victim had come near the house of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner and instigated him on account of which the subject incident happened.
4. It is further contended that it was not the petitioner, who assaulted the victim but members of the public; as the victim was making too much noise.
5. Reliance is placed on the medical report to contend that the injuries were sustained on the petitioner on an earlier date as the medical record shows that he was operated for the treatment of his pancreas.
6. Further, it is contended that since charge sheet has already been filed and investigation is over, there is no purpose of incarcerating the petitioner any further.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the grant of bail and submits that the MLC referred to by the petitioner to contend that the victim was operated upon earlier than the date of incident has been clarified by the concerned hospital and the doctor who have stated that there was an error in the recording of the date on the same. Further, he submits that the eye witnesses have stated that it was not the public but the petitioner, who inflicted the injuries on the victim and the complainant. He further submits that the injuries are of grievous nature that the victim is disabled permanently for life and would never lead a normal life.
8. As per the MLC, the following injuries were sustained by the victim:-
(i) Poly trauma due to alleged history of assault involving multiple organ systems.
(ii) Blunt trauma abdomen
(iii) Crush injury pancreatic head and body
(iv) Mesenteric tear with gangrenous distal ileum and proximal transverse colon.
(v) De-vascularized right kidney
(vi) Multiple rib fractures
(vii) Right orbital floor fracture
(viii) Laceration of medical canthus of eye
(ix) Laceration of lower lip
9. In addition, the victim suffered multiple rib fractures and crush injuries on head and body. One of the kidneys of the victim has been removed. He has sustained permanent damage to his pancreas and other organs.
10. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is entitled to bail as the victim was the aggressor. Even if assuming the victim was the aggressor, it does not entitle the petitioner or anyone else to inflict injuries of the nature, which the victim has sustained.
11. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and nature of the injuries and the fact that charges have yet to be framed and the statement of the victim as well as complainant is yet to be recorded, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage.
12. In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed.
13. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 10, 2018 ‘Sn’