The seriousness of the offense, the existence of a prima facie case, and the gravity of the allegations influenced the court's decision to set aside the bail.

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions for cancellation of bail of the accused/R2 in FIR No. 549/2017 under Sections 304/308/34 IPC, Police Station - S.P. Badli, granted vide order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned A.S.J., Rohini, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the alleged crime has been captured on the CCTV camera. As per the CCTV footage, the deceased husband of the petitioner/complainant had knocked on the gate of accused persons. The gate was opened by the co-accused, i.e. mother of respondent No. 2 and she started talking to the deceased. Immediately thereafter, respondent No. 2 - Ravi Rana came running from the street and knocked down the deceased. The deceased could never get up thereafter.

3. Then, Rajesh Rana (wearing blue shirt and brother of the respondent No. 2) came out of his house with wooden logs/ lathis and was the first person to give a hard blow on the head of the deceased followed by others. The petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, tried to save her husband but she was also assaulted by all the accused persons and injuries were sustained by her.

4. The petitioner was pulled away by the brother of respondent no.2, to facilitate attack upon the deceased by respondent No. 2 while the deceased was lying on the ground in an unconscious state. Respondent no.2 was the first person to assault the deceased with lathis. Even after the deceased had become unconscious, the accused persons kept on striking on his head and other parts of body for about 15 minutes continuously.

5. The deceased was admitted to Ambedkar Hospital on 30.06.2017 in an unconscious state and on the next day, he was shifted to Brahm Shakti Sanjivani Super Specialty Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He remained in an unconscious state and on ventilator support till he succumbed to his injuries on 07.07.2017 at 12:26 A.M. Therefore, the injuries upon the deceased are directly related to the death of the deceased and Section 302 IPC has been added.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the police in connivance with the accused persons fraudulently inducted Section 304 IPC instead of 302 IPC to facilitate bail and that is how the accused succeeded in getting anticipatory bail.

7. Subsequent to grant of anticipatory bail, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 302/307/34 IPC. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased while he was lying unconscious on the ground. The petitioner in the process of trying to save her husband from the accused, herself laid down upon the deceased. The accused persons with the intention of killing the petitioner, hit the petitioner on her head. In the process of trying to save her head, she put her hands on her head and, resultantly sustained severe injuries on the hand and also sustained three other fractures. Thereafter, the petitioner could not raise her hands to protect herself from the subsequent blows and, therefore, sustained two severe injuries on her head also. The petitioner got operated upon her right hand's elbow and a rod has been fixed there.

8. Before the Court of Sessions, it was argued by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that at about 12.30 PM, he received a phone call from his father's mobile asking him to come home as husband of the complainant, i.e. Rajender (now deceased), had broken their drainage system and was threatening them that he would eliminate their family. It is further contended that upon receiving the call the accused left the library. When he was going to his house at about 4.30 pm, Rajender (deceased) gave an axe blow to him, due to which he sustained injuries on his head. Consequently, he was admitted to BSA hospital. It was further contended that the complainant and her husband forcefully tried to enter in their house and threatened to kill them and also abused the mother of respondent no.2.

9. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge