Chanderpati vs State - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1937

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Chanderpati - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2170 of 2020, Bail Appln. 2424 of 2020 and Bail Appln. 2487 of 2020
Decided On : 04-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rajiv Khosla, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for State with SI Surinder, PS Begum Pur.

Headnote:
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving allegations of assault on a public servant, obstruction of government work, and causing injuries to a police constable. The Court considered the delay in filing the FIR, the presence of multiple versions of the incident, and the fact that the applicants had not been involved in any further offenses during the period when their previous bail application was declined. The Court also took into account the civil suits filed by the parties involved in the property dispute, which indicated that the ownership of the property was in dispute.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants were accused of assaulting a police constable, obstructing government work, and causing injuries to the constable. The incident occurred during a property dispute between the applicants and the complainant. The applicants claimed that they were only trying to take pictures of the property as evidence for a legal remedy, while the police alleged that the applicants had assaulted the constable and obstructed their work. The FIR was filed with a delay of 7 hours, and there were multiple versions of the incident.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was a delay in filing the FIR, and that there were multiple versions of the incident. The Court also noted that the applicants had not been involved in any further offenses during the period when their previous bail application was declined. The Court took into account the civil suits filed by the parties involved in the property dispute, which indicated that the ownership of the property was in dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the presence of multiple versions of the incident weakened the prosecution's case. 2. Whether the applicants' lack of involvement in further offenses during the period when their previous bail application was declined was a factor in favor of granting bail. 3. Whether the civil suits filed by the parties involved in the property dispute were relevant to the issue of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in filing the FIR and the presence of multiple versions of the incident weakened the prosecution's case. The Court also held that the applicants' lack of involvement in further offenses during the period when their previous bail application was declined was a factor in favor of granting bail. The Court further held that the civil suits filed by the parties involved in the property dispute were relevant to the issue of bail, as they indicated that the ownership of the property was in dispute.
Final Decision: The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, subject to certain conditions, including that they not leave the area of NCR, appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, keep their mobile phones on at all times to ensure that their location is available to the Investigating Officer, and make no attempt to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The BAIL APPLN. 2170/2020, BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 & BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020 have been taken up together, in as much as, all the three applicants of the said applications are arrayed as accused in FIR No.140/2020, PS Begum Pur under Sections 186/188/332/353/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on 13.05.2020 and all the three applicants seek the grant of anticipatory bail in relation thereto, submitting to the effect that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

2. Qua applicant named Chanderpati, vide order dated 14.08.2020 in BAIL APPLN. 2170/2020, it has been directed that she be not arrested subject to conditions that she would keep her mobile phone on at all times; would not leave the city, would not make any contact with the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, would not commit any offence whatsoever and would drop a PIN on the Google map so that her location was available to the Investigating Officer at all times. Likewise, the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020 namely Jitender @ Dola vide order dated 03.09.2020, has been granted protection from arrest subject to the same terms and conditions. There is nothing on the record put forth by the State to indicate that there has been any violation of the terms and conditions imposed on the applicants Chanderpati (the applicant of Bail Appln. No. 2170/2020) and Jitender @ Dola, (the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020) vide orders dated 14.8.2020 and 03.09.2020.

3. The applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 namely Karamvir, however, has not been granted any interim protection. This is so, in as much as, BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 filed by the applicant thereof, Karamvir was the second application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking the grant of anticipatory bail, the previous application of the said applicant i.e. Bail Appl. No.1298/2020 vide order dated 29.06.2020 having been declined without the grant of any such protection, as prayed.

4. Vide order dated 29.06.2020 in Bail Appl. No.1298/2020, it had been observed to the effect:

"In terms of the order dated 22.06.2020, the status report has been submitted by the State. As per the said status report, all complaints that have been made by the accused persons are after registration of the FIR and the FIR in the instant case is dated 13.05.2020. It has also been submitted through the said status report that a complaint was made by one Mr. Suresh Kumar, s/o Shri Bhagwan on 16.05.2020 stating that he purchased a plot bearing no.50, 400 sq. yds. out of Khasra No.68/10, 68/11, 69/15, Rajeev Nagar Ext., Delhi on 12.05.2020 from Mr. Jai Kanwar and that the documents were executed one day before the registration of the case in order to move false complaints to mount pressure on the police and take benefit in the case. As regards the aspect of the documentation, the State submits that they do not relate to the instant FIR and relate to the Civil Suit titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. Pradeep @ Lambu @ Khalifa & Anr. in CS No.765/2020 which is pending before the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge as indicated vide order dated 20.05.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has inter alia placed reliance on a photograph placed on the record at page 37 of the petition stating that the same is of the Investigating Officer of the case who made a video recording of the entire incident. The Investigating Officer of the case is present and submits that at page 37 is his photograph but states that he was not making any video recording and was only attending to a call. In the circumstances, on a consideration of the status report and the FIR in question which indicates that though the applicant has joined the investigation, he has not cooperated in the same and that the disclosure of the identity of the co-accused persons is yet to be made, coupled with the allegations in the FIR itself of an alleged assault on a public servant on duty by the applicant with his co-accused persons, there is