Full Text
BAIL APPLN.2072/2017
NARESH
Petition Represented by: er Mr.Kanwarpreet Singh and
Mr.Mahavir Sharma, Advocates.
MOHIT@MONU Respondent Mr.Hirein Sharma,AFP for the State with SI Deepak,PS
Prashant Vihar.
Mr.S.S.Dahiya,Advocatefor the complainant.
Petitioner Mr.KanwarpreetSingh and Mr.Mahavir Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent Mr.Hirein Sharma,APP for the State with SI Deepak,PS
Prashant Vihar.
Mr.S.S.Dahiya,Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER o/^ 08.02.2018
JUDGMENT
1. By these two petitions the petitioners seek anticipatory bail m case FIRNo.420/2017 under Sections 308/323/34IPC registered atPSPrashant BAILAPPLN.2072/2017<S2073/2017 P'^S^^"f^ 2018:DHC:8176 o Vihar,Delhi.
2. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint ofone Ashish Dahiya who alleged that he fell in love with Lavanya,daughter ofRohtash. and they both got married in the year 2016 without the consent oftheir family members.• Later after the families reconciled, their marriage was again perfonned however,afterfew daysofthe marriage,family ofLavanya started threatening to kill the complainant. Lavanya went back to her parental home and did notreturn.
3. On 18'^ August,2017 at about 11.00PM the complainant along with ^ his brother Vineet and Vikas wentto G3S Mall,Sector-11,Rohini and was sitting outside the Mall,when at around 11.15 PM the family members of Lavanya,thatis,Rohtash herfather,Naresh heruncle,Lakshyaherbrother, Monu,Dadu and two other persons reached there in muffled faces with baseball sticks and iron rods in their hands. They brutally assaulted the. complainant,his brother and friend. Thereafterthe accused ran away. The injuriestothethreeinjured have beenopinedto besimple mnature.
4. Though learned counsel for the complainant claims that recovery of weaponsoftheoffencearetobe made,however,thisCourton 16'^October, 2017 granted interim protection to the petitioners, subject ^o their participatingintheinvestigation andvisitingthePolice Station asand when requiredbuttilldatenonoticetojointheinvestigationhasbeengiventothe petitioners by the Investigating Officer. It is thus apparent that the Investigating Officer does not want the presence of the petitioners for investigation. Moreover the learned Trial Court has already granted anticipatory bail to Rohtash and Lakshya who have been assigned similar BAILAPPLN.2072/2017&2073/2017 ^ roles.
5. Considering that the role assiped to the petitioners is same as Rohtash and Lakshya,this Courtdeemp itfitto grantanticipatory bailto the petitioners. Itis,therefore,directed thatinthe eventofarrestthe petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they willjoin the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and will notleave the country withoutprior permission ofthe learned Trial Court and in case ofchange ofresidential address,the same will be duly intimated to the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit.
6. Petitions are disposed of.
7. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA,J. FEBRUARY 08,2018 'vn' BAILAPPLN.2072/2017&2073/2017 Page3of[3]