Full Text
Translation output
$-17-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 655/2016
RADHEY SHYAM Petitioner
Through MsJasbir Kaur and Mr.Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 655/2016
RADHEY SHYAM Petitioner
Through MsJasbir Kaur and Mr.Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent (THROUGH
DELHI fflQp CqmT)'-i'" /j •\
/}' -sX Additional ff t5*' Prosecutor'for the State l! f i l l [ , \\ i
^<7/ y,^ .^Sn. f
'i-\ 4- X',3' k^V22i-'Sm&'j:i'i--' '-';i-t:f' f,-.i-, ;;•> .
BAIL APi^LNS||6y20L6 .,3^' XL.
DEEPAK Petitioner TludughLTx;?:rM^ Kaur and Mr.Ajay
Kumar Pipaniya, Advocates
DELHI fflQp CqmT)'-i'" /j •\
/}' -sX Additional ff t5*' Prosecutor'for the State l! f i l l [ , \\ i
^<7/ y,^ .^Sn. f
'i-\ 4- X',3' k^V22i-'Sm&'j:i'i--' '-';i-t:f' f,-.i-, ;;•> .
BAIL APi^LNS||6y20L6 .,3^' XL.
DEEPAK Petitioner TludughLTx;?:rM^ Kaur and Mr.Ajay
Kumar Pipaniya, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent (THROUGH STANDING COUNSEL(CRL)
DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI)
Through Mr.Akshai Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith sub Inspector Deepak
2016:DHC:8238 / s Bhardwaj, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi
DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI)
Through Mr.Akshai Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith sub Inspector Deepak
2016:DHC:8238 / s Bhardwaj, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
07.04.2016 Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the two applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners in case^^^EIRxL-Nj3.0p9^ under Section
186/353/332/354#4^IPCy^istered^ aCPblice Station Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi. " '•
Gase^^of prosecutionlsMKbrief^is that on>h7.Q2.2016 the
/;' mMmw^ 'I TPDDL officials nam'llSfVI'ayfeBansal, Assistant^\ Manager, Makhan Singh, Gaura\| iRak'shapal Singh, Raj Si|igh, Sunil
Kumar; Dharamveer ahdiMies&taff Jyotsana and Geeta came
\\ M n to police statibmxAahrsliv/Nagarifan^^^^^ for police assistance'Torifcohducting a raid forJhe powerhheft in Azadpur.
For providing%|sfst^^ft^~'^]^!DE|Jfe'^0onstable Ram Pal and Constable SheesmRam^wasXiepm The police officials alongwith TPDDL team reached at house no. 476, Railway
Road, Azadpur Delhi and proceeded to check the electricity meter of the house but the owner Radhey Shyam stopped the team from entering into his house and used filthy language.
Constable Sheesh Ram asked Radhey Shyam not to use filthy langauage but Radhey Shyam lost his tamper and started shouting. In the meantime, a young healthy boy assaulted
Constable Sheesh Ram on which Head Constable Ram Pal intervened but Radhey Shyam called two more persons namely
Deepu and Deepak and 2-3 ladies. Thereafter, all these persons started beating Head Constable Ram Pal, Constable Sheesh
Ram, ladies staff of TPDDL team namely Jyotsana and Geeta and obstructed them from discharging their duty and also tore the clothes of the police officials. On the statement of Head
Constable Ram Pal, a case under Section 186/353/332/354/34
IPC was registeredfijurkig^the cojifse-^if investigation. Head
Constable Rafn Kah ^Constable Sheesh Rhm and Jyotsana was yy '-K got medibally% exama3neM&n^B3RM Hospital '^Mahangirpuri.
.f ^ Tomed'/ cldthes/uniforfii^of^lloliS'ofofficials werev\taken into possession. |
Counsel for petitioherjJ^adney Shyam submits/that since the pe^tioner and hisWaffiyTfhi^iinbersx. were being falsely implicated, as/sdch;' they-%ftrtne D^R<;i^orth'VWest, Ashok
V, // Vihar who gave"ah assufanBeftoHdokantofthe'/fnatter, however, nothing was donefC^ns^^ that sister of the petitioner Veena also sustained injuries. There was no occasion for obstructing the officials from discharging their duty as the elder brother of the petitioner was working in TPDDL and was having two electricity connections and was getting subsidy on his electricity connection being a staffmember. Counsel further submits that apprehending arrest, application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge
V and interim protection was granted to him on 29.02.2016 till
11.03.2016. He was further directed to join investigation. The petitioner did join the investigation, however, on 29.02.2016, the application itself was disposed of. Therefore, an application for modification of the order was moved which was dismissed.
Another application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved which was dismissed by the Court. Counsel submits that the petitionersuffered a brain stroke whichbroughthim to paralytic condition and he^s-n'ot^n apposition !b"speak or walk properly.
Reference was niadeHo the medical certificate issued to the
,4'' xn petitionenTon.showing^thatlheys^sfilTnot abre tp'joih his duties. i7 ^ V
As^fegards Deepak|l#|G^nG^med, it was-'submitted that il • I .. pursuant to the direction YpKehf by the learned Additional i' ISftii II ..
Sessions Judge, he has joined,iiiye;s|;igation. Boththe/petitioners are ready and.;?willihgHd1joih>©rthen^4nvestigation. Their
'A. '••T'Ja..... //, , j custodiaTinterro'gation is-hdtTequired;;as sueh,4tney be released on bail. A.-'V; ^ ^ ..y
Application is Appdse#-byHeamed Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that Radhey Shyam himself is a
Constable in Delhi Police. Despite having knowledge of law, he obstructed the public servants in performing their official duties. As regards the illness of petitioner Radhey Shyam is concerned, report was obtained from Max Healthcare from where the petitioner has furnished his medical certificate and the doctor opined that Radhey Shyam is suffering from left midbrain infarct right ataxia. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor further submits that in case of need, the
Superintendent Jail will take all necessary steps to get the petitioner medically examined and to see that he gets proper treatment but keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, none of the petitioners deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.
It is not in dispute that petitioner Radhey Shyam is working as Constahlo in ©elhi Policfe^jThat being so, he is expected to,be hayn^g-reqi^h|,kn6"w^^ the provisions oflaw. As'peflbii'e avefmeiMi^dSin the applica^'on, there was no theft ot^lectricity'^ihaf4ftti#^=?me brother"of the petitioner
[I < L was an employee of PPI^J^li'^d/was getting subsi'jdy on the
'i 1it ll ll bills. That being so, it Ayas; dllfthe more required that/when the
^ vyao aiiqtii^ u \\ ° ' f ,7}4 rAihU, li ft oat 1 officials of TPDDL albftgwith-mOlice officials camq to inspect the premises,;:ftJtie'--^eti1;ioftep;:o^^^ members should not'^ha\^:e;lDi)stmeted ;&em.J^oM'drstmkr^iiig their official duties. However;:7a|'^"pfelithe'fflR^ petitioners but
-O" also other family meml5ers"ftncluding ladies obstructed the raiding party from discharging their official duties. In fact, even beatings were given to Head Constable Ram Pal, Constable
Sheesh Ram and Jyotsana as a result of which they were medically examined in BJRM Hospital and their injuries were opined to be simple. Things did not end here, even the uniform of police officials were tomed. The raiding party was abused and assaulted.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the petitioner Radhey Shyam himself being a Constable, was supposed to maintain law and order, on the contrary, he himself was responsible in obstructing the officials from discharging their duties; he even called other members of the family who joined him in causing obstructions, assault and abused the members ofthe team. That being so, they do not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.
As regardsrfthe" illness-, of Radhey;-Shyam is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ts right in submitting that in case o'f ne'ad,' all/ri^GBashwllafrangemeht^^ made by
Superintendent Jail tofeMsureflhatfthe petitioner ^gets proper
// .'4 medical treatment In yi^j^jpf|t|ie same, the applications are fill dismissed, however, it fe/iciairified that the observations made herm shall not tantarhount tU '''"^-
M merits ofthe cas& m'oJahijjtSfahy^ expression of /opinion on
^•w >-.ii > ^ .I'v- .. tA.. / (
"-A-,. // .jy 4'' SUNITA a APRIL 07, 2016 mb ILTTA, J
07.04.2016 Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the two applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners in case^^^EIRxL-Nj3.0p9^ under Section
186/353/332/354#4^IPCy^istered^ aCPblice Station Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi. " '•
Gase^^of prosecutionlsMKbrief^is that on>h7.Q2.2016 the
/;' mMmw^ 'I TPDDL officials nam'llSfVI'ayfeBansal, Assistant^\ Manager, Makhan Singh, Gaura\| iRak'shapal Singh, Raj Si|igh, Sunil
Kumar; Dharamveer ahdiMies&taff Jyotsana and Geeta came
\\ M n to police statibmxAahrsliv/Nagarifan^^^^^ for police assistance'Torifcohducting a raid forJhe powerhheft in Azadpur.
For providing%|sfst^^ft^~'^]^!DE|Jfe'^0onstable Ram Pal and Constable SheesmRam^wasXiepm The police officials alongwith TPDDL team reached at house no. 476, Railway
Road, Azadpur Delhi and proceeded to check the electricity meter of the house but the owner Radhey Shyam stopped the team from entering into his house and used filthy language.
Constable Sheesh Ram asked Radhey Shyam not to use filthy langauage but Radhey Shyam lost his tamper and started shouting. In the meantime, a young healthy boy assaulted
Constable Sheesh Ram on which Head Constable Ram Pal intervened but Radhey Shyam called two more persons namely
Deepu and Deepak and 2-3 ladies. Thereafter, all these persons started beating Head Constable Ram Pal, Constable Sheesh
Ram, ladies staff of TPDDL team namely Jyotsana and Geeta and obstructed them from discharging their duty and also tore the clothes of the police officials. On the statement of Head
Constable Ram Pal, a case under Section 186/353/332/354/34
IPC was registeredfijurkig^the cojifse-^if investigation. Head
Constable Rafn Kah ^Constable Sheesh Rhm and Jyotsana was yy '-K got medibally% exama3neM&n^B3RM Hospital '^Mahangirpuri.
.f ^ Tomed'/ cldthes/uniforfii^of^lloliS'ofofficials werev\taken into possession. |
Counsel for petitioherjJ^adney Shyam submits/that since the pe^tioner and hisWaffiyTfhi^iinbersx. were being falsely implicated, as/sdch;' they-%ftrtne D^R<;i^orth'VWest, Ashok
V, // Vihar who gave"ah assufanBeftoHdokantofthe'/fnatter, however, nothing was donefC^ns^^ that sister of the petitioner Veena also sustained injuries. There was no occasion for obstructing the officials from discharging their duty as the elder brother of the petitioner was working in TPDDL and was having two electricity connections and was getting subsidy on his electricity connection being a staffmember. Counsel further submits that apprehending arrest, application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge
V and interim protection was granted to him on 29.02.2016 till
11.03.2016. He was further directed to join investigation. The petitioner did join the investigation, however, on 29.02.2016, the application itself was disposed of. Therefore, an application for modification of the order was moved which was dismissed.
Another application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved which was dismissed by the Court. Counsel submits that the petitionersuffered a brain stroke whichbroughthim to paralytic condition and he^s-n'ot^n apposition !b"speak or walk properly.
Reference was niadeHo the medical certificate issued to the
,4'' xn petitionenTon.showing^thatlheys^sfilTnot abre tp'joih his duties. i7 ^ V
As^fegards Deepak|l#|G^nG^med, it was-'submitted that il • I .. pursuant to the direction YpKehf by the learned Additional i' ISftii II ..
Sessions Judge, he has joined,iiiye;s|;igation. Boththe/petitioners are ready and.;?willihgHd1joih>©rthen^4nvestigation. Their
'A. '••T'Ja..... //, , j custodiaTinterro'gation is-hdtTequired;;as sueh,4tney be released on bail. A.-'V; ^ ^ ..y
Application is Appdse#-byHeamed Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that Radhey Shyam himself is a
Constable in Delhi Police. Despite having knowledge of law, he obstructed the public servants in performing their official duties. As regards the illness of petitioner Radhey Shyam is concerned, report was obtained from Max Healthcare from where the petitioner has furnished his medical certificate and the doctor opined that Radhey Shyam is suffering from left midbrain infarct right ataxia. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor further submits that in case of need, the
Superintendent Jail will take all necessary steps to get the petitioner medically examined and to see that he gets proper treatment but keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, none of the petitioners deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.
It is not in dispute that petitioner Radhey Shyam is working as Constahlo in ©elhi Policfe^jThat being so, he is expected to,be hayn^g-reqi^h|,kn6"w^^ the provisions oflaw. As'peflbii'e avefmeiMi^dSin the applica^'on, there was no theft ot^lectricity'^ihaf4ftti#^=?me brother"of the petitioner
[I < L was an employee of PPI^J^li'^d/was getting subsi'jdy on the
'i 1it ll ll bills. That being so, it Ayas; dllfthe more required that/when the
^ vyao aiiqtii^ u \\ ° ' f ,7}4 rAihU, li ft oat 1 officials of TPDDL albftgwith-mOlice officials camq to inspect the premises,;:ftJtie'--^eti1;ioftep;:o^^^ members should not'^ha\^:e;lDi)stmeted ;&em.J^oM'drstmkr^iiig their official duties. However;:7a|'^"pfelithe'fflR^ petitioners but
-O" also other family meml5ers"ftncluding ladies obstructed the raiding party from discharging their official duties. In fact, even beatings were given to Head Constable Ram Pal, Constable
Sheesh Ram and Jyotsana as a result of which they were medically examined in BJRM Hospital and their injuries were opined to be simple. Things did not end here, even the uniform of police officials were tomed. The raiding party was abused and assaulted.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that the petitioner Radhey Shyam himself being a Constable, was supposed to maintain law and order, on the contrary, he himself was responsible in obstructing the officials from discharging their duties; he even called other members of the family who joined him in causing obstructions, assault and abused the members ofthe team. That being so, they do not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.
As regardsrfthe" illness-, of Radhey;-Shyam is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ts right in submitting that in case o'f ne'ad,' all/ri^GBashwllafrangemeht^^ made by
Superintendent Jail tofeMsureflhatfthe petitioner ^gets proper
// .'4 medical treatment In yi^j^jpf|t|ie same, the applications are fill dismissed, however, it fe/iciairified that the observations made herm shall not tantarhount tU '''"^-
M merits ofthe cas& m'oJahijjtSfahy^ expression of /opinion on
^•w >-.ii > ^ .I'v- .. tA.. / (
"-A-,. // .jy 4'' SUNITA a APRIL 07, 2016 mb ILTTA, J
JUDGMENT