Full Text
Translation output
S'
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 689/2016
Petitioner JYOTI
Through: Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 689/2016
Petitioner JYOTI
Through: Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Through:
Through:
AND
BAIL APPLN. 644/2016
SUNITA
Through:
SUNITA
Through:
VERSUS
Through:
AND
AND
BAIL APPLN. 643/2016
Respondent Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State alongwith ASI Ramavtar, PS Adarsh
Nagar.
Mr.D.K.Mishra, Advocate for complainant along with complainant in person.
Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State
Nagar. complainant alongwith complainant 2016:DHC:8243
GOPAL
Respondent Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State alongwith ASI Ramavtar, PS Adarsh
Nagar.
Mr.D.K.Mishra, Advocate for complainant along with complainant in person.
Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State
Nagar. complainant alongwith complainant 2016:DHC:8243
GOPAL
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI , Through:
AND
AND
BAIL APPLN. 645/2016
GEETA
Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP for State Nagar.
GEETA
Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP for State Nagar.
VERSUS
Through:
AND
AND
BAIL APPLN. 646/2016
POOJA
Through:
POOJA
Through:
VERSUS
Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State Nagar.
Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate -v
Through:
AND
Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate -v
Through:
AND
BAIL APPLN. 647/2016
KAVITA
Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP for State Nagar.
KAVITA
Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP for State Nagar.
VERSUS
Through:
Mr.Akshai Malik, APP for State Nagar.
Mr.Akshai Malik, APP for State Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
25.04.2016 Vide this common order I shall dispose of Bail Application
Nos.689/2016, 644/2016, 643/2016, 645/2016, 646/2016, 647/2016. All the bail applications have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in case FIR No. 854/2015.
FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Nisha stating therein that she is resident of A-138 Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. She used to park her car in front ofHouse No.A-27
Majlis Park. About one year ago, on the issue of parking car an altercation took place with family of Rajender Sharma in which her car was also damaged and a complaint was lodged in the police station. On the intervention of the people ofthe locality, a compromise was entered into between the parties, however, again the family of Rajender Sharma had quarrelled and scuffled with her on the issue ofparking ofcar on 27.11.2015
M and her car was damaged. She lodged an FIR with the police against them.
The family of Rajender Sharma is pressurizing her to compromise the matter. On her refusal to do so, she is getting threats to face dire consequences. On 15.12.2015 at about 8.30' pm she was talking with
Cheenu, sister ofher friend near Kaka Masala shop at Tagore Road. In between Pooja came there and started abusing and beating her. She was saved by the father of Cheenu who took her from the backway of the shop.
Due to fear she was running towards her house and Pooja was running behind her. As soon as she reached on the road infront ofShiv Mandir then from the side of Shiv Mandir Gopal, Govinda, Sunny, brothers of Pooja armed with dadas in their hands and Sunita, mother ofPooja, sister Jyoti and two aunts alongwith some persons ofthe Gali came and blocked her way.
They all surrounded her. Aunts ofPooja caught hold of her hands and were threatening that they will break her hands and feet and started beating her with lathi, dandas and legs. They hit her on her head, shoulder and legs and other parts ofthe body. She was saved by some public persons. She ran and entered into his house. All ofthem closed the door ofthe house from outside and said that they will set on fire the house. She made aphone call to PGR.
'H'
Police came at the spot. She was saved by them. During the assault Pooja and Jyoti have taken her rings and bracelet. This statement resulted in registration ofthe aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the incident is dated 15.12.2015 but there is delay in lodging the FIR as the same was lodged on 17.12.2015. Moreover, even as per the allegations Section 452
IPC is not made out. One ofthe co-accused Govinda was arrested and he was released on bail. Reference was made to the bail order passed qua co- y accused Govinda wherein the Investigating Officer admitted that Pooja also sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners are ready to join investigation, as such, theybe released on bail.
Application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by the complainant. Learned APP submits that this was not the solitary incident when the quarrel has ensued between the parties over the parking of the vehicle. Even prior to the registration of this FIR, dispute arose over the same issue resulting in registration of FIR in the year 2013. Since the parties lives in the same
^ locality, therefore, in order to bring peace and harmony, the matter was compromised but the petitioners and their family members did not mend their ways resulting in continuous quarrel over the parking issue. On
27.11.2015 also she was given severe beating resulting in sustaming grievous injuries. Her car was also badly damaged. Subsequently, she was pressurized to compromise the matter. On refusal, on 15.12.2015 again she was assaulted as aresult ofwhich FIR No.854/15 was registered. Due to the constant threats, the complainant is compelled to live separately in a PG
Hostel away from her mother. As regards the injuries sustained by Pooja, learned APP submits that no cross FIR were registered by the petitioners. , Even no complaint has been filed by them till date against the complainant.
Moreover, since the petitioners are not available for the purpose of investigation, even the Investigating Officer could not investigate regarding injuries sustained by Pooja. It is further submitted that petitioners cannot claim parity with co-accused Govinda who was granted regular bail. Further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for recovery of gold chain which was snatched by them and the weapon ofoffence.
/ In normal circumstances the petitioners being ladies would have been entitled to a discretionary relief in their favour, however, the facts ofthe present case are peculiar, as the parties are resident of same/nearby locality and the quarrel took place over the parking of the vehicle. The situation is peculiar because it is not the solitary incident as prior thereto also in the year
2013 a quarrel had taken place in this regard and the matter was compromised between the parties but then again the complainant was attacked by the applicants and their family members on 27.11.2015. When she did not agree for compromise, present incident took place resulting in registration of present FIR. That being so, petitioners do not deserve the indulgence of this Court for getting the relief of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, all the applications are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on merits of the case. jTwjrKWi-
SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 25, 2016 mb
25.04.2016 Vide this common order I shall dispose of Bail Application
Nos.689/2016, 644/2016, 643/2016, 645/2016, 646/2016, 647/2016. All the bail applications have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in case FIR No. 854/2015.
FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Nisha stating therein that she is resident of A-138 Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. She used to park her car in front ofHouse No.A-27
Majlis Park. About one year ago, on the issue of parking car an altercation took place with family of Rajender Sharma in which her car was also damaged and a complaint was lodged in the police station. On the intervention of the people ofthe locality, a compromise was entered into between the parties, however, again the family of Rajender Sharma had quarrelled and scuffled with her on the issue ofparking ofcar on 27.11.2015
M and her car was damaged. She lodged an FIR with the police against them.
The family of Rajender Sharma is pressurizing her to compromise the matter. On her refusal to do so, she is getting threats to face dire consequences. On 15.12.2015 at about 8.30' pm she was talking with
Cheenu, sister ofher friend near Kaka Masala shop at Tagore Road. In between Pooja came there and started abusing and beating her. She was saved by the father of Cheenu who took her from the backway of the shop.
Due to fear she was running towards her house and Pooja was running behind her. As soon as she reached on the road infront ofShiv Mandir then from the side of Shiv Mandir Gopal, Govinda, Sunny, brothers of Pooja armed with dadas in their hands and Sunita, mother ofPooja, sister Jyoti and two aunts alongwith some persons ofthe Gali came and blocked her way.
They all surrounded her. Aunts ofPooja caught hold of her hands and were threatening that they will break her hands and feet and started beating her with lathi, dandas and legs. They hit her on her head, shoulder and legs and other parts ofthe body. She was saved by some public persons. She ran and entered into his house. All ofthem closed the door ofthe house from outside and said that they will set on fire the house. She made aphone call to PGR.
'H'
Police came at the spot. She was saved by them. During the assault Pooja and Jyoti have taken her rings and bracelet. This statement resulted in registration ofthe aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the incident is dated 15.12.2015 but there is delay in lodging the FIR as the same was lodged on 17.12.2015. Moreover, even as per the allegations Section 452
IPC is not made out. One ofthe co-accused Govinda was arrested and he was released on bail. Reference was made to the bail order passed qua co- y accused Govinda wherein the Investigating Officer admitted that Pooja also sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners are ready to join investigation, as such, theybe released on bail.
Application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by the complainant. Learned APP submits that this was not the solitary incident when the quarrel has ensued between the parties over the parking of the vehicle. Even prior to the registration of this FIR, dispute arose over the same issue resulting in registration of FIR in the year 2013. Since the parties lives in the same
^ locality, therefore, in order to bring peace and harmony, the matter was compromised but the petitioners and their family members did not mend their ways resulting in continuous quarrel over the parking issue. On
27.11.2015 also she was given severe beating resulting in sustaming grievous injuries. Her car was also badly damaged. Subsequently, she was pressurized to compromise the matter. On refusal, on 15.12.2015 again she was assaulted as aresult ofwhich FIR No.854/15 was registered. Due to the constant threats, the complainant is compelled to live separately in a PG
Hostel away from her mother. As regards the injuries sustained by Pooja, learned APP submits that no cross FIR were registered by the petitioners. , Even no complaint has been filed by them till date against the complainant.
Moreover, since the petitioners are not available for the purpose of investigation, even the Investigating Officer could not investigate regarding injuries sustained by Pooja. It is further submitted that petitioners cannot claim parity with co-accused Govinda who was granted regular bail. Further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for recovery of gold chain which was snatched by them and the weapon ofoffence.
/ In normal circumstances the petitioners being ladies would have been entitled to a discretionary relief in their favour, however, the facts ofthe present case are peculiar, as the parties are resident of same/nearby locality and the quarrel took place over the parking of the vehicle. The situation is peculiar because it is not the solitary incident as prior thereto also in the year
2013 a quarrel had taken place in this regard and the matter was compromised between the parties but then again the complainant was attacked by the applicants and their family members on 27.11.2015. When she did not agree for compromise, present incident took place resulting in registration of present FIR. That being so, petitioners do not deserve the indulgence of this Court for getting the relief of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, all the applications are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on merits of the case. jTwjrKWi-
SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 25, 2016 mb
JUDGMENT