Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Deda vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2020

Author: Suresh Kumar Kait

Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait

$~8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     BAIL APPLN. 3816/2020
      RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI DEDA                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr. Sameer Chandra, Advocate

                         versus

      THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                   ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State
                              with SI Neeraj P.S. Wazirabad.
                              Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Advocate for
                              the complainant.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
               ORDER

% 18.12.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. CRL. M.A. 16685/2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in pursuance to FIR No.240/2020 dated 23.06.2020 registered at Police Station-Wazirabad for the offences punishable under Sections 342/325/392/394/308/34 IPC.

4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition by stating that on 22.06.2020 in the morning around 7-8 am, mother of co-accused along with Ravi, petitioner herein, went to the house of complainant and asked him to sell his house. Complainant was called by co-accused to the house of BAIL APPLN. 3816/2020 Page 1 of 3 Petitioner to settle the issues. When the complainant went to their house, Petitioner alongwith other co-accused were present and petitioner pointed a pistol on his head and asked him to sign 8-10 blank papers. Accordingly, he signed in coercion. At that time of the alleged offence, accused persons were carrying weapons. Petitioner herein was carrying a pistol, while others were carrying iron rod and bamboo danda. Co-accused tore his cloths and took out Rs. 7,800/- from the front pocket of complainant. Further, they all gave beatings to the complainant and tried to kill him. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No. 284/2020 registered by the petitioner's wife against the complainant in FIR No. 240/2020. The complainant is a practicing lawyer. He had manipulated things and concocted a false story to save himself. Complaint himself after trespassing in the house of petitioner tried to commit rape and sexually assault his wife. First PCR call was made by the family members of petitioner. Further, there is inordinate delay in registration of FIR, as the alleged incident took place on 22.06.2020, whereas FIR was registered on 23.06.2020. The complainant got himself admitted in the hospital at around 6 pm on 22.06.2020, whereas incident took place around 11am-12 noon.

6. It is important to note here the facts of the cross FIR. On 22.06.2020, accused Nishant (i.e complainant in FIR No. 240/2020) entered the house of complainant at around 7:30 am. He started using filthy language and after which he went back home. At around 9/9:30 am, complainant along with her husband/petitioner went to the police station, where the matter with accused was resolved. On the same day at around 11:30 am, accused entered the BAIL APPLN. 3816/2020 Page 2 of 3 house of the complainant when petitioner was not at home. Accused sexually assaulted her and tore the clothes of the complainant and kicked her. Accused was drunk and starting abusing in filthy language and threatened them by saying that he is a lawyer and they cannot do anything to him and police will not take any action against. Petitioner made a call to the Police Station, who then took Nishant to the Police Station. Petitioner was told to make a complaint at Police Station Jharoda, while the accused ran away from the Police Station.

7. Keeping in view of the facts recorded above and the fact that petitioner is in J/C since 01.07.2020, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail.

8. Accordingly, he shall be released on bail forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court

9. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence any witness or tamper with the evidence.

10. The Trial Court shall not get influenced by the observation made by this Court while passing the order.

11. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

12. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent concerned and Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J DECEMBER 18, 2020 Aj BAIL APPLN. 3816/2020 Page 3 of 3