Sunil @ Gyaneshwar v. State (Not of Delhi)

1. By way of these applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioners are seeking anticipatory bailin caseFIRNo.145/2016 under BAIL APPLN. Nos.744/2016 & 778/2016 2016:DHC:8247 Sections 394/506/34 IPG, PS Sunlight Colony, Delhi.

2. The said FIR has been registered on IS''' March, 2016 on the statement made by Deepak Sharmawho is also resident of same area where thepetitioners areresiding.

3. As per the FIR on 13"* March, 2016 at about 10.00 p.m. the complainant along with his wife Kanchan who was in family way, had been coming from Maharani Bagh Bus Stand towards their house in Kilokari Village, Sun Light Colony, Delhi. On the way they met Deepak @ Chhalawa, Sunil and Vicky, all resident ofVillage Kilokari who belong to caste Jatav. There were two other persons with them and all ofthem stopped the complainant and his wife and tried to snatch the money from them. When the complainant and his wife resisted they started beating his wife. Then he asked his wife to go home and call other family members. He has further reported thatallthepersons started giving him beating with fists and blows and also attacked himwith a bricklying there. As a result he received injuries on his face and fracture on his shoulder. They also forcibly took away X[1],000/- from his pocket and tried to throw him in the running traffic under a truck. By that time his elder brother, Ashish along with some other person reached the spot. On seeing them all those persons ran away.

4. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that the FIR has been registered in this case after a delay of two days which remains unexplained. It has been further submitted that there is fierce enmity between the complainant and the petitioners who are resident of the same village as they belong to different castes. The petitioners belong to Scheduled Castes while the complainant belongs to upper class. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is highly improbable that the X petitioners who are well known to the complainant wouldcommitrobbery or assault them in the manner reported in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to another FIR No.544/2015 registered on ll'^ August, 2015 which was been registered on the statement made by Virender Singh and almost similar allegations have been made in the said FIR as well.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Deepak has also placed reliance on Mardan Singh & Am. Vs. State of M.P., 2014 SCC online MP 3592; Mustakim Siraj Shaikh Vs. The State ofMaharashtra, 2015 SCC online / Bom 5480; Prahlad Yellappa Gudimani Vs. The State ofKarnataka, 2013 SCC online Kar 4429; P.Soorya Das & Ors. Vs. The State ofKerala, 2014 SCC online Ker 26572; Deepu M. Vs. State of Kerala 2011 SCC online Ker 2475 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 whereinthe petitioners therein were ordered to be releasedon anticipatory bail evenin a caseunder Section 394/427 IPG.

6. I have perused the reports relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, Deepak and find that considering the facts of those particular cases theprayer for grant ofanticipatory bail have been considered.

7. The effect of delay in registration of FIR No. 145/2016 has to be considered atthe appropriate stage as it is for the complainant toexplain that in what circumstances FIR was not registered immediately.

8. For the purpose of consideration of anticipatory bail the MLC No.547694 ofDeepak Sharma can be looked into which shows the date and time of examination as March 13, 2016 at 23:07:11. On the MLC it is also mentioned alleged history ofassault. Regarding history ofENT Bleed, it is mentioned as 'yes'. After conducing X-Ray ofCXR, PXR, LT Shoulder and BAIL APPLN. Nos.744/2016 &778/2016 Page 3of[5] ? Face and taking opinion from specialists of various departments viz. Radiology, Orthopaedics, Trauma surgery and Maxillofacial opinion, nature of injury has been found to be grievous and the weapon used has been opined as sharp and blunt. As per the MLC, the complainant was brought to the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AJIMS by the police official R.B.Meena having belt No.3574.

9. All the three petitioners have been named in the FIR and the MLC has been prepared at a Government hospital immediately after theoccurrence.

10. In the case reported as Add Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal 2005 III AD (SC) 73, the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for releaseon anticipatoiy bail and in para 19held as under "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part oftheprocess ofinvestigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection ofother persons, ifany, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of materialfacts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part ofthe process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 ofthe Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope ofinterference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation ofa crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interfere in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 ofthe Code."

11. When the case of the petitioners is examined in the light of above principles, taking into consideration the nature of accusation, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

12. The application is dismissed.

13. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions raised during hearing of the bail application shall not be deemed to be an expression on merits ofthe case.

PRATIBHA RANI, J. MAY 11,2016/ BAIL APPLN. Nos.744/2016 &778/2016 Page 5of[5]