Full Text
Translation output
-J- $-33 & 62 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 944/2016
DINESH SEJWAL
Through:
BAILAPPLN. 944/2016
DINESH SEJWAL
Through:
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr. Ajayinder Sangwan, Mr. Sachin Sangwan, Mr. Tarunesh Kumar, Mr. S. N. Sharma, Mr. Narendra Singh, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rohan Sharma, Mr. V. P. Singh, Mr. Kunal Chopra, Ms. Rishina Parashar and Mr. Anirudha Kumar, Advs.
STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through ; Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with Inspector
UpenderPS Mehrauli.
STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through ; Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with Inspector
UpenderPS Mehrauli.
AND
BAILAPPLN. 1562/2016
ABHISHEK NARAYAN @WILLIAM Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr. Shyam Sharma and Ms. Swati Malik, Advs.
STATE
ABHISHEK NARAYAN @WILLIAM Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr. Shyam Sharma and Ms. Swati Malik, Advs.
STATE
VERSUS
Respondent
Through ; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with Inspector
Upender PS Mehrauli.
Through ; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with Inspector
Upender PS Mehrauli.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
ORDER o/o 03.08.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant in this FIR is an accused in FIR No.l89/2014 under Sections 307/302/34 IPG read with
Sections 25/27/25(54)/59 of the Arms Act, registered at police station
Mehrauli, on the complaint ofManjeet Sehrawat on 7 February, 2014 stating
2016:DHC:8224 c therein that petitioners along with Sanjeev Sejwal, Manjeet Sahrawat, Sandeep, Paramjeet and Aman Tewatia were present in the office of Sanjeev Sejwal when Aman Goel, Sunny, Vijay and Rakesh Malik (complainant in this case) arrived-~^diere^n^ar. Some other persons were also there with them. They fought with Paramjeet and others including petitioners. Sunny took out his revolver and.shot Paramjeet, Vijay too topk out a small pistol and fired twice_ on Manjeet Sehrawat, who ran out and closed the shutter from outside. After sometime Manjeet Sehrawat opened the shutter and threw red chilli in the eyes ofSunny, Vijay and Rakesh Malik. Ashok ran towards Vijay who fired on him as a result ofwhich Ashok sustained injuries. Public gathered and accused persons named in the said FIR ran away. Paramjeet and Sandeep later on succumbed to bullet injuries. Injuries were received in the hand ofcomplainant party in this case. In fact complainant in this case and the persons named in the said FIR were the aggressors.
It is further contended that as a counter blast and in order to put pressure on the petitioners, who are eye witnesses in FIRNo.l89/2014 as well as not to depose against them, the complainant got the present FIR registered after two years, pursuant to the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that no FIR was registered immediately after the incident alleged inthepresent FIR.
Learned APPhas contended thatthe complaint was givenby Mr.Rakesh
Malik immediately after the incident and is in fact a cross FIR. However, no action was taken onthe complaint ofRakesh Malik bythe Investigating Officer since complainant was in custody from ll^'^ March, 2014 onwards, in FIR
No.189/2014. Subsequently, FIR was registered on the directions of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. Allegations in the FIR against the petitioners are
F serious in nature.
It may be noted that accused Ashok Pandit has already been granted t s benefit ofanticipatory bail by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court vide order dated 18^^ July, 2016 inBail Appl. No.l155/2016.
Keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of?25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one surety ofthe like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting
Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioners shall, however co operate in investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating
Officer.
Boththe bail applications are disposed ofinthe above teii^s.
AUGUST 03,2016/dk
ORDER o/o 03.08.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant in this FIR is an accused in FIR No.l89/2014 under Sections 307/302/34 IPG read with
Sections 25/27/25(54)/59 of the Arms Act, registered at police station
Mehrauli, on the complaint ofManjeet Sehrawat on 7 February, 2014 stating
2016:DHC:8224 c therein that petitioners along with Sanjeev Sejwal, Manjeet Sahrawat, Sandeep, Paramjeet and Aman Tewatia were present in the office of Sanjeev Sejwal when Aman Goel, Sunny, Vijay and Rakesh Malik (complainant in this case) arrived-~^diere^n^ar. Some other persons were also there with them. They fought with Paramjeet and others including petitioners. Sunny took out his revolver and.shot Paramjeet, Vijay too topk out a small pistol and fired twice_ on Manjeet Sehrawat, who ran out and closed the shutter from outside. After sometime Manjeet Sehrawat opened the shutter and threw red chilli in the eyes ofSunny, Vijay and Rakesh Malik. Ashok ran towards Vijay who fired on him as a result ofwhich Ashok sustained injuries. Public gathered and accused persons named in the said FIR ran away. Paramjeet and Sandeep later on succumbed to bullet injuries. Injuries were received in the hand ofcomplainant party in this case. In fact complainant in this case and the persons named in the said FIR were the aggressors.
It is further contended that as a counter blast and in order to put pressure on the petitioners, who are eye witnesses in FIRNo.l89/2014 as well as not to depose against them, the complainant got the present FIR registered after two years, pursuant to the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that no FIR was registered immediately after the incident alleged inthepresent FIR.
Learned APPhas contended thatthe complaint was givenby Mr.Rakesh
Malik immediately after the incident and is in fact a cross FIR. However, no action was taken onthe complaint ofRakesh Malik bythe Investigating Officer since complainant was in custody from ll^'^ March, 2014 onwards, in FIR
No.189/2014. Subsequently, FIR was registered on the directions of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. Allegations in the FIR against the petitioners are
F serious in nature.
It may be noted that accused Ashok Pandit has already been granted t s benefit ofanticipatory bail by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court vide order dated 18^^ July, 2016 inBail Appl. No.l155/2016.
Keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioners be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of?25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one surety ofthe like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting
Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioners shall, however co operate in investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating
Officer.
Boththe bail applications are disposed ofinthe above teii^s.
AUGUST 03,2016/dk
JUDGMENT