SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Kishan - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1888 of 2021 & Crl.M.A. 8445 of 2021
Decided On : 31-05-2021




Bail should be granted when pre-trial detention is extensive, and animosity between parties raises concerns of false allegations, ensuring fair process until trial completion.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 147, 148, and 34 - Bail application - Petitioner sought bail after being accused in an FIR for grievous injuries inflicted upon the complainant, citing antecedents of animosity and self-defense - FIR registered on attack on petitioner and his associates. (Paras 1-5, 10)

(B) Bail - In determining bail, consideration of animosity between parties, duration of pre-trial detention, and likelihood of trial delay are relevant - Petitioner appeared in CCTV footage but was granted bail previously due to similarities with another accused. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is charged under various sections following an attack incident with grievous injuries claimed by the complainant, who alleged ongoing animosity. The petitioner claims this is a false allegation stemming from an earlier encounter where he witnessed the complainant's crime. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner has been incarcerated since 05.01.2020 with a charge sheet filed. The court noted the trial might take significant time, favoring bail while ensuring compliance conditions are set. (Para 10)

Issues: The main issues addressed include the substantive role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, the previous animosity, and whether the grant of bail was justified given the circumstances. (Paras 8-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial, acknowledgment of the complainant's enmity, and the comparative role of co-accused are substantial factors warranting bail, thus setting aside concerns raised by the prosecution. (Para 10)

Result: Petitioner's bail granted on conditions imposed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition and fir details (Para 1 , 2)
2. allegations and counterclaims (Para 5 , 6)
3. assessment of bail considerations (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. bail granted conditions (Para 11)
5. order conclusion (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking bail in FIR No. 517/2020, under Sections 307 /147/148/34 IPC, registered at police station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.

2. The FIR in question has been registered at the instance of complainant Puneet @ Sameer who has alleged that on 06.07.2020, at around 05:30 PM he and his friend were attacked by 5-6 boys who hit them with sword/knife/danda and petitioner was named one of those accused. On the aforesaid complaint, the FIR in question was registered against petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Notice issued.

4. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that complainant is the Bad Character (BC) of the area and has enmity with petitioner and especially his brother, since they believed that they are witness to one of their crimes committed by him with his associates in the area of Lal Bagh. It is further submitted that in the night of 25.06.2020 the complainant of the present FIR had first attacked the house of petitioner and also fired a gun shot with an intention to kill petitioner and regarding this incident, after a PCR call, DD entry No. 23/A under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was made and the complainant was released on bail the next day. However again on 06.07.2020, complainant with his associates, armed with deadly weapons like swords, iron rods, knives and dandas attacked the petitioners and when they were resisted by local persons, who in self defence beaten them up, they took advantage of their injuries and got the present FIR registered against the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present petition while submitting that in the MLC, nature of injury suffered by the complainant has been opined to be `grievous' and petitioner has specifically been named in the FIR in question as one of the assailants and also that in the CCTV footage, he is seen carrying a sword and running towards the place of incident.

7. Counsel representing both the sides have been heard and material placed on record has been perused.

8. Case of petitioner is that complainant has animosity against the petitioner. Petitioner is witness to a crime wherein complainant and his associates had stabbed a person in front of his house in broad day light and since then, complainant has been pressurizing petitioner not to be a witness against them. So far as allegation that in the CCTV footage of the incident, petitioner is seen holding sword in his hand, another accused Bobby is also seen carrying knife in his hands, however, he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2021.

9. Though learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present petition submitting that the role attributed to the petitioner is different from Bobby, however, he is unable to distinguish the same.

10. Petitioner is behind bars since 05.01.2020. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed, but charge has not yet been framed and trial shall take substantial time. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to release petitioner on bail.

11. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, while making it clear that any observation made herein shall not influence either side during trial.

12. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application is also disposed of as infructuous.

13. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness and shall appear be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top