Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
K Rajapandian - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln.812 of 2022
Decided on : 06-05-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Mr. Arav Kapoor, Mr. J.P. Aggarwal, Mr. Nitin Saluja, Ms. Ayushi Nagar, Ms. Priyanka Prasanth, Ms. Sheezan Hashmi & Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent Complainant:Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Mr. Shivaang Gupta, Mr. Fahad Khan, Mr. Dhruv Pande & Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Advocates.

The inference of intention or knowledge from the circumstances of the case and the factors to be considered while granting bail.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 279/338 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks bail in a case involving an alleged hit-and-run incident resulting in grievous injuries to the victim. The petitioner's counsel argues that only the offences under Sections 279/338 IPC are prima facie disclosed and Sections 307/308 IPC have been wrongly invoked. The petitioner is a second-year law student with a clean past, and it is contended that he is not required for the purpose of investigation.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the contentions raised by both parties and emphasized that intention or knowledge is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case. The court noted that each case has to be decided on its own facts and that intention may be gathered from the nature and consequences of the act and attendant circumstances. The court also highlighted the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail.
Issues: The issues revolve around the prima facie evidence of the offences, the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that intention or knowledge is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and highlighted the factors to be considered while granting bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and complying with specific conditions, including depositing a sum of money with the court and refraining from criminal or illegal activities during the bail period.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC in FIR No. 67/2022 dated 09.02.2022 registered at Police Station Greater Kailash. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC and subsequently Sections 307/308 IPC have also been invoked.

2. In brief, the FIR was registered on 09.02.2022 at 0045 hours with reference to the alleged incident which occurred on 08.02.2022 about 17:15 hours, on the statement of one Rampal Negi. He alleged that he had been working as a driver in B-92, Greater Kailash-I with one Bal Gopal Mandelia. On 08.02.2020 about 05:15 PM while he was standing on the main road along with other drivers namely Laxman and Jaswant, injured Anant Vijay Mandelia came from his house and started walking on the main road. In the meanwhile, he saw a yellow car coming from the direction of Ikhaya Hotel, Greater Kailash-I, B Block at a very high speed and driven in zigzag manner which hit Anant Vijay Mandelia who fell on the bonnet of the car. However, the car did not stop and after travelling 100 meters, sudden brakes were applied on which Anant Vijay Mandelia fell on the road from the bonnet and the driver fled away. The registration number of the offending car was further stated to be DL12-CU 6969. FIR was accordingly registered under Sections 279/338 IPC.

3. Learned APP for the State contends that during the course of investigation, CCTV cameras installed near the place of incident were examined and it was seen that the injured had signaled the offending vehicle to stop but the driver/accused hit the injured. Due to impact of over speeding car, the injured fell on the bonnet but the accused failed to stop and carried the injured up to 100-150 meters. The father of the petitioner is also alleged to be seen sitting on the front passenger seat along with the petitioner when the car was later on parked. The disclosure statement of the petitioner, who is student aged 19 years is also stated to have been recorded wherein he disclosed his passion to drive fast. It is also stated that the accused used to make videos of speedometer and placed on WhatsApp status. The application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the injured was hit deliberately with an intention to kill and was dragged up to 100-150 meters causing grievous injuries.

4. The bail application is also vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and reliance is placed upon Paras Arora vs. State of UT, 2021 SCC Online P & H 1629, Rohit Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4490, Naginbhai Chandubhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat, R/CR.MA/6079/2018, Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2005 SCC Online P & H 953, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Suleman Rehiman Mulani and Another vs. State, AIR 1968 SC 829, in support of the contentions.

5. On the other hand, Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that as seen in the CCTV footage, a person is seen to be standing firmly in the middle of the road for stopping the car and the driver of the car swerved to his right as an auto rickshaw passed ahead from the left side of the vehicle. It is further submitted that only offence under Sections 279/338 IPC is prima facie disclosed and Sections 307/308 IPC have been wrongly invoked. It is urged that intention to kill could not be deciphered merely because the injured was dragged for about 100 meters on the bonnet of the car. It is also contended that the petitioner has clean past antecedents and is a second year law student pursuing BBA LLB from IILM university. The petitioner is further stated to be not required for the purpose of investigation. The offences under Sections 279/338 are stated to be bailable. Reliance is further placed upon : Paras Arora vs. State of UT 2021 SCC Online P & H 1629; Rohit Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2021 SCCC Online Delhi 4490; Naginbhai Chandubhai Solanki vs. State of Gujart R/CR.M