Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 648/2016
JYOTI Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate
Through:
Respondent Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State alongwith ASI Ramavtar, PS Adarsh
Nagar.
Mr.D.K.Mishra, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
SUNITA Petitioner
Through:
AND
Respondent Mr.Alcshai Malik, APP for State alongwithASI Ramavtar, PS Adarsh
Nagar. complainantalongwith complainant 2016:DHC:8242
V- POOJA Petitioner X
Through: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State alongwith ASI Ramavtar, PS Adarsh
Nagar. complainant alongwith complainant
25.04.2016 Vide this common order I shall dispose of bail applications
648/2016, 642/2016 and 638/2016 as all the three bail applications have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in case
FIR No. 778/2015.
FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Nisha wherein she alleged that on 27.11.2015 at around 2.45 pm when she came to her house at A-27, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi in her Maruti Swift Car No. DL-ICN 1396 and reached in front of her house a car belonging to Rajender Sharma was already parked there and a lady named Jyoti was standing nearby.
When Nisha asked her to move that car so that she could park her car in front of her house Jyoti started abusing her. Her mother Sunita and sister Pooja also reached there. Sunita called up Rajender and
O.P.Sharma at the spot. During the argument, when Nisha was entering into her house to call her mother, all the aforesaid persons grabbed her. O.P.Sharma handed over aDanda to Jyoti and asked her toteach her a lesson on which Pooja grabbed both the hands ofNisha and Jyoti started beating her up by Danda. Sunita kicked and punched
Nisha. Nisha shouted and called her mother Nanhi Devi who came out for help on which Jyoti, Sunita and Pooja started beating her mother Nanhi Devi. Rajender Sharma and O.P.Sharma who were standing nearby grabbed the T-shirt of Nisha from her chest and dropped her on the earth and started kicking and punching her. When she shouted for help then they started running from the spot. In between Jyoti snatched her phone and threw it on the windscreen of the car of Nisha and also hit her car with Danda and stones. Jyoti pulled the gold chain from her neck. This statement resulted in registration of aforesaidFIRs.
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that a fight ensued between the parties but according to him, the complainant was the aggressor. In the fight Jyoti, Sunita and Pooja also sustained grievous and simple injuries respectively. Custodial interrogation of none of the petitioners is required as Rajender
Sharma was arrested. His custodial interrogation was not sought by the police and later on he was released on bail. Co-accused Harender
Sharma alias O.P.Sharma was released on anticipatory bail. Counsel further submits that although initially the FIR was registered under
Section 323IPC only, however, as per the status report now Section
ORDER
325 IPC has also been added but even the same is bailable one. The petitioners are ladies and their custodial interrogation is not required. They are ready to join investigation, as such, they be 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 ensuedbetween the parties over the parking ofthe vehicle. Even prior to the registration ofthis 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 sustaining 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 a result of which 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 the petitioners, 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 the petitioners. It is fiarther submitted that petitioners cannot claim parity with co-accused Rajender Sharma who was granted regular bail. Although Harender Sharma was granted anticipatory bail, however, application for cancellation of his bail has already been moved by the complainant. Further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for recovery of gold cham which was snatched by them and the weapon ofoffence. In normal circumstances the petitioners being ladies would have been entitled to a discretionary reliefin 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 X 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. Subsequent thereto also for an incident dated 15.12.2015 took place for which FIR No.854/2015 stands registered under Sections 147/149/323/308/341/342/34IPC against the applicants and their family members. That being so, despite the fact that the petitioners are ladies, they 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 opinionon meritsof the case. SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 25,2016 mb
JUDGMENT