2013 Supreme(Del) 2107
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pratibha Rani, J.
Anmol Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Bail Application No. 796 of 2013
Decided On : 23-05-2013
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj , Mr. Ankush Narang, Advo#31;cates.
For the State : Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP.
The seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the larger public interest are key factors in considering bail applications in non-bailable offences.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 109/302/307/324 - The court discussed the legal principles governing the grant of bail in non-bailable offences and emphasized the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence, and larger public interest. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that mere exhortation without causing injury should be a ground for bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the crime and the potential prejudice to the prosecution case if the petitioner was released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, father of co-accused, applied for bail in a case involving serious charges under IPC 109/302/307/324. The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the potential influence on witnesses if the petitioner was released.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the serious nature of the crime, the potential prejudice to the prosecution case, and the lack of merit in the bail application warranted the dismissal of the bail application.
Issues: The issues involved the seriousness of the offence, the potential influence on witnesses, and the legal principles governing the grant of bail in non-bailable offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the larger public interest as key factors in considering the bail application. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that mere exhortation without causing injury should be a ground for bail, highlighting the serious nature of the crime and the potential prejudice to the prosecution case if the petitioner was released on bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the court clarified that the observations made should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case at any stage of the trial.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. The petitioner Anmol Singh is father of co-accused Kamal Nain @ Honey and Prabh Simran @ Money and they are facing trial in case FIR No.259/2012, under Sections 109/302/307/324 IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar. The bail application of the petitioner has earlier been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide detailed order dated 06.05.2013.
2. Notice of the application was issued to the State and status report has been filed by the State.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.K.Manan, Advocate has submitted that the petitioner is 57 years old and a handicapped person. While referring to the contents of FIR, he submitted that even as per prosecution, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the complainant or his other family members including the deceased. The role attributed to the petitioner is that of exhortation. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 22.07.2012 and in view of role attributed to him and the orders granting bail passed by various Courts including this Court in similar circumstances i.e. in case of exhortation, bail has been granted, the petitioner may also be ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions deemed fit by this Court.
4. On behalf of the State, prayer for grant of bail has been strongly opposed on the ground that both sons of the petitioner attacked the complainant and his family with knives and in the incident while father of the complainant succumbed to the injuries, serious injuries were caused to other family members. It has been further submitted that charge has been framed in this case, no public witness has been examined till date and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is released on bail in a heinous crime, it will have adverse affect on prosecution case thereby giving an opportunity to the petitioner to influence the witnesses, hence the petitioner may not be released on bail.
5. Perusal of the FIR shows that the case was registered on the basis of statement made by Harminder Singh, son of the deceased Bhagat Singh. He informed the police that he along with his family consisting of his parents, brothers, uncle reside at 22/2A, Prem Nagar, Jail Road, Hari Nagar and they have joint family. He along with his uncle Inder Mohan Singh run a readymade garment shop in Tilak Nagar and their daily routine is to leave for the shop at 11 a.m and return by 9/9:30 p.m. On the day of occurrence, as usual, he along with his uncle returned home at 9:30 p.m and after having dinner when they were just going to retire for sleep, his younger brother Tejinder Singh @ Rinku returned home at 10:15/10:30 p.m and at that time his T-shirt was torn. On enquiry about how his T-shirt was torn, Rinku informed that he had gone to attend the birthday party of his friend Chirag hosted at Tandoor Restaurant, 18/1, Prem Nagar. Chirag had also invited Kamal Nain @ Honey for his birthday party. Since Kamal Nain @ Honey was passing comments on him during talks, there was a ‘hathapai’ between them and thereafter he returned home.
6. The complainant further narrated that Kamal Nain @ Honey reside in the next gali. After about half an hour near gate of Matka Electronics at 20/1, Doble Storey, Kamal Nain @ Honey came and started abusing and calling them. In the meantime, his brother Prabh Simran @ Money and their father Anmol Singh (petitioner herein) also reached there and started abusing them.
7. On hearing this, all the family members of the complainant came to the balcony of the first floor of the house and to ensure that the matter is not precipitated, his uncle and father went downstairs to make them (petitioner and his two sons) understand, but they continued insisting for sending Rinku downstairs and while abusing also started throwing brick bats in the balcony towards Rinku. His father and uncle were enquiring the matter, but the petitioner Anmol Singh Bhalla was insisting for sending Rinku down to teach him a lesson and then tell what happened. While