Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chander Shekhar, J.
Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Application No. 1828, 1833, 1836 of 2019
Decided On : 22-10-2019
Mohit Mathur, Adv., Vikram Panwar, Adv., Pardeep Dabas, Adv., Vikas Walia, Adv., Suyash Sinha, Adv., Amit Chadha, Adv., Yashima Sharma, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of considering evidence, contradictions, and the history of the case in determining bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - FIR No.43/2019 - Sections 323/325/452/427/354/201/341/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x), (xi), (s) of the SC/ST Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of physical assault, caste-based discrimination, and destruction of property against the accused persons. The petitioners sought bail, claiming innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statements, lack of evidence to support the allegations, and a history of strained relations between the families involved. Considering the circumstances, the court granted bail to the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the veracity of the allegations, the application of bail provisions, and the potential threat posed by the accused to the complainant and her family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence, contradictions in the complainant's statements, and the history of strained relations between the families as key factors in granting bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The bail applications of the petitioners were allowed, and they were admitted to bail with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Chander Shekhar, J.
This order shall govern the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.43/2019 dated 23.1.2019, under Sections 323/325/452/427/354/201/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 3(1)(x), (xi), (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the SC/ST Act"), registered at Police Station Sector-23, Dwarka, Delhi.
2. The State has filed the status report before this Court wherein it is stated that the present case was registered on the complaint of Ms.Kanta wife of Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar son of Late Shri Prahlad, both residents of H. No.759, near Community Centre, village Bharthal, Dwarka, New Delhi, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the directions of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, in which they alleged that all the accused persons, namely, Ashok @ Shoki, Deepak, Sunil, Harender, Hardeep and Pradeep entered the house of complainants on 11.7.2018 at around 8:00 pm. Accused Ashok and Deepak caught Ms. Kanta by hair and dragged her and hit her head into the wall. Thereafter, all the accused persons started beating the complainant with hockey sticks, sword and fist blows. It is further alleged that accused Deepak, & Ashok broke the elbow of the complainant Smt. Kanta and accused Pradeep, Harender, Hardeep and Ashok had told the complainant that she belongs to a family of "Chamar' and further said to her that "tu chamari hamare Jatto ke gharo mai kya kar rahi hai". It is further alleged that thereafter, the accused persons broke all the windows and doors of the house of the complainant as well as the utensils kept therein. Accused persons also damaged the CCTV Cameras installed in the premises and took the DVR containing the CCTV footage with them. A supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed by the prosecution in the matter before the Trial Court on 7.8.2019.
3. Nominal roll of the petitioners has also been received.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP and the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also gone through the police case file and the documents on record.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the alleged incident was stated to have taken place on 11.7.2018 when one of the complainants dialed at No.100. The version of the complainant was duly recorded by the PCR at that time and the PCR form itself proves that the petitioners did not utter any derogatory caste based remarks against the complainant. Even otherwise, a compromise was effected between the parties on 12.7.2018 which also vitiates the version of the complainant in the FIR. It is also submitted that the petitioners Harender, Deepak, Ashok and Pradeep have been in judicial custody since 27.3.2019, 31.5.2019, 10.7.2019 and 27.3.2019, respectively.
6. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners that the present case is one where two families of a village have had strained relations for more than two decades over a piece of land and that the entire case is an afterthought and fabricated with a malafide intention to falsely implicate the petitioners. The allegations leveled are extremely bald in nature. It has been alleged that the accused persons entered the house of the complainant and broke all the doors, windows and utensils in the house. However, there are no photographs to substantiate the above said allegations of the complainant. Further, it has been falsely alleged by the complainant that the petitioners have taken away the DVR containing the CCTV footage.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a bare reading of the complaint made on 11.7.2018 and later, an application filed under Sectio
