Delhi High Court - Orders
Dipanshu Gupta vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 April, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1264/2022 & CRL.M.A. 7558/2022
DIPANSHU GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arpit Bhalla, Ms. Manisha
Saroha and Ms. Pratibha Varun,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) with
Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate for State
along with SI Mukesh Yadav, P.S.
Rajouri Garden
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Abhishek
Pati, Advocates for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 29.04.2022
1. The instant bail application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No. 0269/2022 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for offences punishable under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the brief Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:07.05.2022 15:32:19 facts of the case as alleged are that the complainant met with the applicant along with Dawood and Fahad at a club in a night party where they became good friends and started going to different night clubs together. The applicant, at a few instances, also brought his girlfriend to the party when Puneet became good friends with her. On the intervening night of 23rd February 2022, after partying the complainant found Dawood extremely furious, the complainant called him at around 4.30 AM to ask the reason behind his anger. Dawood replied that it was wrong on the part of the complainant to hide about Puneet and applicant's girlfriend which had made the applicant heartbroken, and that Dawood would kill Puneet in a few days, if given a chance.
3. It is further submitted that when at around 5.30 AM the complainant along with Rohit met with Dawood, Fahad and the petitioner to resolve the issue, Dawood started a scuffle with the complainant and the applicant grabbed him from behind. When Fahad and Dawood opened fire at the complainant's chest, Rohit intervened to save him which made the bullet miss the target and hit the complainant on his toes instead of his chest and Rohit on his hand.
4. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is a victim of circumstances and has been falsely implicated in the case. The F.I.R was registered after a gap of 8 hours to fill the lacunas and that it was done in vengeance and the applicant had only acted in self- defence. It is submitted that no specific role of the applicant has been assigned as he neither possessed any weapon nor attacked the victim with the intention of killing him. The applicant is a young boy of 25 years with past clean antecedents and has a fixed residence in Delhi which eliminates Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:07.05.2022 15:32:19 any chances of his absconding away.
5. Per contra, Ms. Nandita Rao, learned ASC for state vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant and submitted that the nature of the offence is heinous, and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to unearth the entire conspiracy and an NBW had been issued against the applicant on 22nd April 2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been co-operating in the investigation with respect to the recovery of the weapon and his mobile phone. Therefore, the instant applicant is devoid of merit and hence be dismissed.
6. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate for the complainant further submitted that the applicant fled away to Dubai and has failed to disclose the same before the Court and trying to keep the Court in dark to obtain favourable orders. It is also submitted that the petitioner is threatening the complainant of dire consequences. Hence, the instant petition be dismissed.
7. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the instant case, firstly, the nature of the offence committed by the applicant is grave in nature. Secondly, Non Bailable Warrant has been issued against him on 22nd January 2022. Thirdly, not only did the petitioner run away from the spot of the incident but also preponed his flight and left for Dubai on 24th January 2022, and the said fact was not at all disclosed before the Courts in his pleadings at any stage. Lastly, the conduct of the applicant is not satisfactory as he is stated to be threatening the complainant of dire consequences and has not been co-operating with the investigation.
9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, submissions of the parties and the material on record, this Court does not find any reason to allow the anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant since this petition is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:07.05.2022 15:32:19 nothing but a gross misuse of process of law and the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands.
10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
11. Pending application, if any, also disposed of.
12. It is made clear that any observations made herein shall have no bearings whatsoever on the merits of the case, at any stage, in any proceedings before any other Court.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J APRIL 29, 2022 Dy/@k Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:07.05.2022 15:32:19