Full Text
Translation output
# HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 2713/2015
SANJAY GANDHI
STATE
Through
BAILAPPLN. 2713/2015
SANJAY GANDHI
STATE
Through
VERSUS
Through
BAILAPPLN. 2718/2015
NITIN PAHUJA
STATE
Through
NITIN PAHUJA
STATE
Through
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr Vipin Sandliya and Mr Ajay Arora, Advs.
Respondent Mr Ashok Kumar Garg, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith Sub Inspector
Umed Singh Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi
Petitioner Mr Vipin Sandliya and Mr Ajay Arora, Advs.
Respondent
Through Mr Ashok Kumar Garg, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith Sub Inspector Umed Singh Police Station Mianwali
Nagar, Delhi
Respondent Mr Ashok Kumar Garg, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith Sub Inspector
Umed Singh Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi
Petitioner Mr Vipin Sandliya and Mr Ajay Arora, Advs.
Respondent
Through Mr Ashok Kumar Garg, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith Sub Inspector Umed Singh Police Station Mianwali
Nagar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
04.03.2016 Apprehending their arrest, these applications under Section 438 of Cr.PC are moved by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.363/2014 under Sections 323/324/34
IPC registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that initially the FIR was registered under
Section 323/324 IPC but subsequent to the opinion obtained by the doctor on the injuries suffered by the victim the offence had been converted to one under Section 326 IPC. One of the petitioners, namely, Sanjay also received injuries. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioners have joined investigation as such they may be granted anticipatory bail.
The application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that due to the injuries inflicted on the person of the complainant he had undergone eye operation twice - once at Guru Nanak Hospital and later at AIIMS. Reference was made to the order passed by learned Trial Court where the complainant / victim had appeared in person and stated that a ring has been inserted in his eye and he is not in a position to see properly. That being so, it is submitted that .the petitioners do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail as
2016:DHC:8214 / prayed by them.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the statement of the complainant that on
17.05.2014 he was cleaning his shop. One person from Spice Punjab Chap came to him and asked for gutka. He told him that gutka is not available at his shop. That person started abusing and pushedhim. After some time that personcame with three persons, amongthem, one was the owner of the shop who took a wiper and startedbeatinghim. The other persongave legs and fists blows. Two other persons, armed with sarias used in tandoor came and started beatinghim as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left eye and several other parts of his body. When he took out his mobile phone for informing the police then, owner of the shop snatched his mobile and in fact he himself made a call to the police at number 100 from his own mobile phone and thereafter returned his mobile.
As per the MLC, the complainant sustained injuries- CLW 2 cms x 1.5 cm on lateral side of his left eye. As per the MLC, the victim was first treated at Guru Nanak Hospital and thereafter at AllMS. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature.
Keeping in view the seriousnessand gravity of the offence allegedagainstthe petitioners, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to them.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.
Interim protection grantedto the petitionersvide order dated 16.12.2015 standsvacated.
SUNITA GUPTA, J MARCH 04, 2016 2016:DHC:8214
04.03.2016 Apprehending their arrest, these applications under Section 438 of Cr.PC are moved by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.363/2014 under Sections 323/324/34
IPC registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that initially the FIR was registered under
Section 323/324 IPC but subsequent to the opinion obtained by the doctor on the injuries suffered by the victim the offence had been converted to one under Section 326 IPC. One of the petitioners, namely, Sanjay also received injuries. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioners have joined investigation as such they may be granted anticipatory bail.
The application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that due to the injuries inflicted on the person of the complainant he had undergone eye operation twice - once at Guru Nanak Hospital and later at AIIMS. Reference was made to the order passed by learned Trial Court where the complainant / victim had appeared in person and stated that a ring has been inserted in his eye and he is not in a position to see properly. That being so, it is submitted that .the petitioners do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail as
2016:DHC:8214 / prayed by them.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the statement of the complainant that on
17.05.2014 he was cleaning his shop. One person from Spice Punjab Chap came to him and asked for gutka. He told him that gutka is not available at his shop. That person started abusing and pushedhim. After some time that personcame with three persons, amongthem, one was the owner of the shop who took a wiper and startedbeatinghim. The other persongave legs and fists blows. Two other persons, armed with sarias used in tandoor came and started beatinghim as a result of which he sustained injuries on his left eye and several other parts of his body. When he took out his mobile phone for informing the police then, owner of the shop snatched his mobile and in fact he himself made a call to the police at number 100 from his own mobile phone and thereafter returned his mobile.
As per the MLC, the complainant sustained injuries- CLW 2 cms x 1.5 cm on lateral side of his left eye. As per the MLC, the victim was first treated at Guru Nanak Hospital and thereafter at AllMS. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature.
Keeping in view the seriousnessand gravity of the offence allegedagainstthe petitioners, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to them.
The applications are accordingly dismissed.
Interim protection grantedto the petitionersvide order dated 16.12.2015 standsvacated.
SUNITA GUPTA, J MARCH 04, 2016 2016:DHC:8214
JUDGMENT