Sukhbir v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The present bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the petitioner for seeking anticipatory bail in the case registered vide FIR No.434/2015 under Section 307/34 ofIndian Penal Code atPolice Station Sonia Vihar, Delhi.

2. The facts giving rise to the present bail application are that the petitioner and his co-workers were working as labourers with the complainant party in their cable network business in the area of Sonia Vihar, Delhi. The complainant did not make the payment of labour charges ofthe petitioner and other co-workers which led to adispute inter se the parties which is pending before the concerned Labour Court.

3. After alapse oftime, the petitioner and his co-workers started their own cable network business in the said area and irked over it, the Bail Application No.1831/2015 Page i of[5] 2015:DHC:10886 complainant and his associates started threatening the petitioner and his business colleagues to withdraw the labour claim cases and stop their cable network business in the said area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to take revenge, the complainant attacked the office ofthe petitioner on 16^^ August, 2015. This matter was reported to the Police on telephone and an FIR 436/2015 P.S. Sonia Vihar was registered against the complainant under Sections 341/323/324/427/506/34 IPG. It is further submittedthat finding no other alternative, the complainant caused injuries to himself and got registered the present case against the petitioner and his colleagues. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the weapon of offence in the present case has not been recovered and the injured person was discharged on the same day of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the main accused namely Ramkesh has already been arrested and is injudicialcustody since the dateof alleged incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is an innocent person and does not have any active role in the case and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was driving the vehicle. There is also no allegation on the petitioner of causing any injury to the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court Bail ApplicationNo.1831/2015 s of Sessions, Delhi on 27.08.2015 but the same was dismissed by the learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and would also join the investigation as and when called upon in future.

7. The State has filed the status report in the present case.

8. Mr.Satya Narayan, learned APP for the State has opposed the present bail application on the ground that the petitioner is required for investigation.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The matter was listed on 3'^'^ September, 2015 before this Court when learned APP for the State had submitted that the petitioner was not involved in any other case and the role attributedto the petitioner was of driving the Scooty which had been recovered. Perusal of the order dated 3'^'^ September, 2015 shows that the State was directed not to arrest the petitioner since no overt act had been attributed to the petitioner who otherwise has clean antecedents. The status report transpires that on 16^^ August, 2015, the complainant was standing in front of his house when Harikishan, Sukhbir (the petitioner in the present case) and Ramkesh came there on aScooty and Harkishan passed remarks and gave a punch on the back ofthe complainant and Ramkesh, who was sitting between Sukhbir and Ramkesh hit him with a sword from behind. It is Bail Application No.1831/2015 Page 3 of[5] further stated that he ran away from there and Harikishan, Ramkesh and Sukhbir chased him but he managed to save himself.

10. During the course of investigation, accused Ramkesh was arrested on 17^^ August, 2015 and the Scooty used in the offence, was recovered from the possession of accused Ramkesh. The co-accused namely Harikishan got anticipatory bail vide order dated 28^^ September, 2015. In the supplementary statement, the complainant has added that Sukhbir had caught hold ofhim when Ramkesh had hithim by sword.

11. The status report reflects that the petitioner joined the investigation in compliance of the order dated 3"^^ September, 2015 passed by this Court. It is also establishedthat the only role attributed to the petitioner was of driving the Scooty which hadbeenrecovered

12. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the order already passed on 03.09.2015, it is directed that inthe event of arrest, the petitioner/accused Sukhbir shall be admitted to anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer. The petitioner is directed not to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court concerned.

13. With aforesaid directions, the present application isdisposed of. Bail Application No.1831/2015 Page 4 of[5]

14. The observations made above shall not have any effect on the merits of the case. Dasti.