Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1939/2015
SANJAYBHATI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma,& Mr.Ram .
Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
BAIL APPLN.1939/2015
SANJAYBHATI Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma,& Mr.Ram .
Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Akshai Malik,APP for the State Mr.Harish Sethi,Adv.with Mr.Sumit
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant. , BAIL APPLN.950/2016
ANIL CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma,& Mr.Ram Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
Through: Mr.Akshai Malik,APP for the State Mr.Harish Sethi,Adv.with Mr.Sumit
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant. , BAIL APPLN.950/2016
ANIL CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma,& Mr.Ram Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE \ Respondent Mr.Harish Sethi,Adv.with Mr.Sumit
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant.
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant.
BAIL APPLN.958/2016
SUMIT BHATI ' ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma, .& Mr.Ram . Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
SUMIT BHATI ' ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri,Sr. Adv.with Mr.Krishan
Kumar,Ms.Vidushi Sharma, .& Mr.Ram . Chander Bhadoria, Advocates
BAILAPPLN.1939/2015~&Etc. . / Page1of5
2017:DHC:8387
2017:DHC:8387
VERSUS
THE STATE ..... Respondent . Mr.Harish Sethi,Adv.with Mr.Sumit
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant., CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
28.04.2017 . Each ofthese applications have been moved invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the applicants Sanjay
Bhati, Anil Chaudhary and Sumit Bhati seeking grant ofanticipatory bail in the context of FIR Nd.470/2015, under Sections 452/506/336/34 IPC of
Police Station Fatehpur Beri.
The learned counsel for the applicants, for,the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard. The record and the case diary ofinvestigation ofcase FIR No.470/2015.has been perused.
The FIR was lodged at the instance ofSatbir Singh Tanwar,father of
Jai Bhagwan, he being his elder son and with whom there had been some dispute over property.. It appears on 07.07.2015 the said Jai Bhagwan had visited the house ofthe first informant and had raised certain dispute about the property. This led to some minor scuffle wherein Virwati, wife ofthe
-first informant was also assaulted. It is.alleged that at 11:45 p.m.the said
Jai Bhagwan along with some ofhis associates, the three applicants herein having been named,came to the house ofthe first informant. It is alleged
Tanwar,Adv.for complainant., CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
28.04.2017 . Each ofthese applications have been moved invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the applicants Sanjay
Bhati, Anil Chaudhary and Sumit Bhati seeking grant ofanticipatory bail in the context of FIR Nd.470/2015, under Sections 452/506/336/34 IPC of
Police Station Fatehpur Beri.
The learned counsel for the applicants, for,the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard. The record and the case diary ofinvestigation ofcase FIR No.470/2015.has been perused.
The FIR was lodged at the instance ofSatbir Singh Tanwar,father of
Jai Bhagwan, he being his elder son and with whom there had been some dispute over property.. It appears on 07.07.2015 the said Jai Bhagwan had visited the house ofthe first informant and had raised certain dispute about the property. This led to some minor scuffle wherein Virwati, wife ofthe
-first informant was also assaulted. It is.alleged that at 11:45 p.m.the said
Jai Bhagwan along with some ofhis associates, the three applicants herein having been named,came to the house ofthe first informant. It is alleged
BAILAPPLN.1939/2015&Etc. , ; Page2of5 that the applicants were carrying firearms in their hands and immediately after entering into the house, they indulged in physical scuffle with the inmates and the firearm was used to shoot in the air by applicants Sanjay
Bhati at the time of fleeing away, after having caused minor injuries on some of the inmates of the house. It is alleged that during the escape, applicant Sanjay Bhati had fallen down near a drain from where certain incriminating material, primarily five live rounds of ammunition of 7.62 bore were also recovered. The case involves offences punishable under
Sections 452/506/336/34 IPC for which the case was registered as indeed , offences under Amis Act.
Noticeably, during the course ofinvestigation the firearm as such has not been recovered so far. When these bail applications was moved by applicant Sanjay Bhati,on the very first date it was conceded by the leamed
Additional Pubic Prosecutor that in the face of the submissions made on behalfofthe complainant, who was also present through counsel that it was, an incident out of a family dispute over distribution of the property, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant Sanjay Bhati,subject to he joining investigation. The said protection.has continued ever since. It . was confirmed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor on 18.09.2015 ^ thatthe applicant hadjointed investigation.
The applications ofAnil Chaudhary and SumitBhati which were filed later came up for hearing together on 13.05.2016 and it was submitted
\ jointly by the counsel on their behalf and the counsel for the complainant thatthe FIR being the consequence ofa dispute between the members ofthe samefamily which had escalated butincludesthe extended families,the
Bhati at the time of fleeing away, after having caused minor injuries on some of the inmates of the house. It is alleged that during the escape, applicant Sanjay Bhati had fallen down near a drain from where certain incriminating material, primarily five live rounds of ammunition of 7.62 bore were also recovered. The case involves offences punishable under
Sections 452/506/336/34 IPC for which the case was registered as indeed , offences under Amis Act.
Noticeably, during the course ofinvestigation the firearm as such has not been recovered so far. When these bail applications was moved by applicant Sanjay Bhati,on the very first date it was conceded by the leamed
Additional Pubic Prosecutor that in the face of the submissions made on behalfofthe complainant, who was also present through counsel that it was, an incident out of a family dispute over distribution of the property, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant Sanjay Bhati,subject to he joining investigation. The said protection.has continued ever since. It . was confirmed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor on 18.09.2015 ^ thatthe applicant hadjointed investigation.
The applications ofAnil Chaudhary and SumitBhati which were filed later came up for hearing together on 13.05.2016 and it was submitted
\ jointly by the counsel on their behalf and the counsel for the complainant thatthe FIR being the consequence ofa dispute between the members ofthe samefamily which had escalated butincludesthe extended families,the
BAILAPPLN.1939/2015&Etc. ' Page3of5 parties wished to explore the possibility of arriving at amicable resolution.
On their request, time was granted for the purpose. On 27.05.2016, when the said applications came up, the learned APP, on instructions, from the investigating officer submitted that since private parties to the said FIR are relatives by blood and were attempting to arrive at an amicable resolution of their family disputes, no coercive steps would be taken against them. The said interim protection has continued eVer since.
At the hearing today, it was again confirmed that the parties are still engaging each other to resolve their wider dispute over the property, which seemsto be genesis ofthe incident,which is the subject matter ofthe present investigation.
It must be added here that during the course of hearing on the applications of Sanjay Bhati,the question ofhis previous involvement also n n • \ came up, this on the basis of submissions made in the status report. The status report dated 16.03.2016, however,,indicates that both the two most serious cases against the said applicant, they being case No.67/2007 and case no.233/2008 ofPolice Station Surajpur at District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. each involving offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Uttar
Pradesh Gunda Act are no longer pending. While the file ofthe first case is stated to be not even available, by order dated 18.07.2008, the court ofr
Magistrate had discharged the applicantin the second said case.
In the facts and circumstances,the applicants deserve relief on these applications. They are,thus,allowed.It is directed that in the event ofthey being arrested during the investigation of case FIR No.470/2015, under
Sections452/506/336/34IPG ofPolice StationFatehpurBeri,the applicants, BAILAPPLN.1939/2015&Etc. " 'Page4of5 namely, Sanjay Bhati, Anil Chaudhary and Sumit Bhati shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to they furnishing personal bonds in the^sum of
Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, subject to the conditions that they shall join the investigation as and when required to do so, that they shall not temper with or influence any ofthe witnesses and that they shall notengage in any criminal activity.
Dasti.
APRIL 28,2017 vk W.K.GAUBfA,J.
On their request, time was granted for the purpose. On 27.05.2016, when the said applications came up, the learned APP, on instructions, from the investigating officer submitted that since private parties to the said FIR are relatives by blood and were attempting to arrive at an amicable resolution of their family disputes, no coercive steps would be taken against them. The said interim protection has continued eVer since.
At the hearing today, it was again confirmed that the parties are still engaging each other to resolve their wider dispute over the property, which seemsto be genesis ofthe incident,which is the subject matter ofthe present investigation.
It must be added here that during the course of hearing on the applications of Sanjay Bhati,the question ofhis previous involvement also n n • \ came up, this on the basis of submissions made in the status report. The status report dated 16.03.2016, however,,indicates that both the two most serious cases against the said applicant, they being case No.67/2007 and case no.233/2008 ofPolice Station Surajpur at District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. each involving offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Uttar
Pradesh Gunda Act are no longer pending. While the file ofthe first case is stated to be not even available, by order dated 18.07.2008, the court ofr
Magistrate had discharged the applicantin the second said case.
In the facts and circumstances,the applicants deserve relief on these applications. They are,thus,allowed.It is directed that in the event ofthey being arrested during the investigation of case FIR No.470/2015, under
Sections452/506/336/34IPG ofPolice StationFatehpurBeri,the applicants, BAILAPPLN.1939/2015&Etc. " 'Page4of5 namely, Sanjay Bhati, Anil Chaudhary and Sumit Bhati shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to they furnishing personal bonds in the^sum of
Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, subject to the conditions that they shall join the investigation as and when required to do so, that they shall not temper with or influence any ofthe witnesses and that they shall notengage in any criminal activity.
Dasti.
APRIL 28,2017 vk W.K.GAUBfA,J.
BAILAPPLN 1939/2015 & Etc. Page5of5
JUDGMENT