The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with, and the larger interests of the public or the State are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, father of victim Sushil seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Chankya Mann @ Sanju, respondent No.2 herein in case FIR No.67/2021 under Section 307 IPC registered at PS Alipur, Delhi granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 9th April, 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 9th April, 20201 is perverse for the reason, the learned Trial Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the co-accused who had no role in the offence, however granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 who had the main role in causing injuries to Sushil alongwith the co-accused Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar resulting in a condition of the injured being unfit for statement for a long duration and even now suffers from paralysis having undergone decompressive cranieotomy. The defence put up in the FIR lodged by the co-accused that the victim was teasing the cousin sister of Gaurav is only an afterthought as the said FIR was lodged subsequently.

The petitioner apprehends threat from the respondent No.2. In view of the gravity of the offence, the order granting anticipatory bail is perverse on facts as well as on law and has resulted in travesty of justice to the petitioner and his son.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that the present petition seeking cancellation of bail is not maintainable as the petitioner is neither the complainant nor the victim. The FIR was registered on a DD entry that too belatedly after 12 hours by manipulating the facts. Statement of the victim was recorded after a long duration. No motive to commit the offence is attributable to the respondent No.2 who was only a friend of Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar. The dispute, if any, was between Gaurav and the victim and not with respondent No.2. One of the co-accused Gaurav s/o Jai Kishan has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence even on parity it cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse.

Charge-sheet has already been filed and thus the respondent No.2 is not required for investigation. Recovery of bricks used for the alleged offence has already been made at the instance of Gaurav. When the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No.2, learned counsel for the complainant was duly present. As per the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar came on a motorcycle and 3 or 4 persons were standing there. It was Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar who took the victim inside the park and the respondent No.2 only followed them and had caused no assault to respondent No.2 or any other person. Even the main accused Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar has been granted interim bail for 60 days on the ground of covid-19. Consequently, no case for cancellation of bail is made out.

4. The above-noted FIR was registered on DD No.27A wherein a PCR call was recorded on 14th February, 2021 in which the caller informed that his younger son had gone to get some articles, where 4-5 people have beaten him brutally and he has received lot of injuries near Chhota Shiv Mandir, Alipur. Head Constable Attar Singh who was assigned the DD entry reached the spot along with Constable Ashok Kumar and found that the injured had been shifted to SRHC Hospital, Narela. He could not find any eye witnesses at the spot and thus he reached the Hospital and collected the MLC of Sushil s/o Umed Singh. The MLC noted alleged history of physical assault around 9.55 AM L/E head injury present abrasion and contusion bulging right parietal region 4x4 cm bulging left occipital 2x2 cm.

The patient was declared unfit for statement and had been referred to higher centre for further management and opinion. The patient was shifted to LNJP Hospital on the same day, where also he was declared unfit for statement and as the Investigating Officer could not find any eye witness and the victim was not in a position to make a statement, FIR No.67/2021 under Section 307 IPC was r