Delhi High Court - Orders
Krishan Kumar Tyagi vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 15 September, 2023
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022
KRISHAN KUMAR TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.S. Kohli along with Mr.
Deepak Parashar, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State
along with ASI Deval.
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for
complainant along with complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 15.09.2023 [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking anticipatory bail filed on the applicant in FIR No. 294/2021 dated 04.07.2021 under Sections 376/354/323/34 IPC registered at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that this is a case where a dispute between the landlord and tenant has been falsely converted into a case under the aforesaid sections.
3. Learned counsel for buttressing the aforesaid arguments invites attention of this Court to page No. 78 of the application to submit that accordingly to the case of the prosecution, the complainant had made a PCR Call on 03.07.2021 at 21:27:54 and on the said date giving BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 1 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:27 version as under :-
"Caller ne Bataya hai k Makan Malik Mujhe or Meri Dorani Ko Niche Bulaya or Izzat Lutne Ki Koshis Ki H or Kapde Fad Diye H or Kal Caller Ke Husband or Devar Ko Bhi Mara Tha".
4. Learned counsel thereafter invites attention of this Court to page No. 79 which is a "Form for Event" recorded by the PCR Officials whereby the version of the complainant, according to the learned counsel, has undergone a change. Moreover, according to Mr. Kohli, learned counsel, the note of the PCR Official records that no untoward incident had happened and accordingly recorded as under :-
"Makan Khali Karne Ko Lekar Kahasuni. Badtameezi Wali Koi Baat Nahi. Mauka Per SHO. ERV-68 IO ASI Suman PS Karawal Nagar".
5. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the investigation recorded by the Police Officials clearly shows that there was no incident other than an altercation in respect of a dispute between landlord and tenant.
6. However, learned counsel submits that subsequently on 04.07.2021, the neighbour of the complainant, namely Ms. S, who also had a grudge against the applicant, took the complainant to the Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110053 to get her MLC conducted.
7. Learned counsel by referring to the notes made by the doctor in respect of the alleged incident, particularly to page No. 82, submits that not only the version now includes two more persons, however, it also includes as to the explicit manner in which the hands and the legs BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:27 of the complainant were held by the two persons and assault by fingering by the applicant, is alleged.
8. Learned counsel also now refers to the genital examination which was conducted by the doctor during the course of the medical examination also categorically indicates that there was bleeding on her private part as she was on her second day of periods. That apart, what is more relevant according to learned counsel is that the complainant had categorically refused the internal examination which is recorded at page No. 83 of the said document.
9. Keeping that in view, learned counsel submits that this is case where simple case of landlord-tenant dispute has been converted into aforesaid alleged serious offences.
10. That apart, learned counsel also refers to page No. 58 of the application which is the part of the chargesheet whereby it is been categorically noted as:
11. Learned counsel submits that in any case, the applicant has participated in investigations and the Police has filed the chargesheet and nothing further remains for the purpose of custodial interrogation so far as applicant is concerned.
12. Mr. Haider, learned APP for the State submits that offences alleged against the applicant are heinous and as such, applicant does not deserve to be protected under the anticipatory bail provisions of the Cr.P.C, 1973.
BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 3 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:28
13. However, learned APP for the State submits that so far as the investigations by the Police are concerned, they are complete and a detailed chargesheet has already been filed before the Trial Court on 01.10.2021.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the anticipatory bail filed by the applicant before the learned Trial Court was withdrawn. Moreover, learned counsel submits that so far as the complainant is concerned, she is not the tenant of the applicant and therefore to term it as a landlord-tenant dispute would be too simple.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant handed over the bench and brings the attention of this Court to order dated 20.03.2023 in a transfer petition filed on behalf of the complainant wherein it was categorically observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that one of the advocates i.e. Mr. Ajay Tyagi, brother of the present applicant, had assaulted both, the complainant and her associate who were present at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in the present FIR itself.
16. Order dated 20.03.2023 bearing No. TRP (Crl.) 1/2023 titled as "Prosecutrix Vs. The State" is taken on record.
17. From the observations noted by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court it is apparent that the Court had admonished Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Advocate and warned him from taking law into his own hands. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Advocate had also given an undertaking that he would neither appear in the said matter nor will indulge into such activities in future.
BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 4 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:28
18. That apart, learned counsel submits that barring the minor contradictions which will not be relevant for the consideration of the case, the complainant has been able to provide complete version of what transpired on the night of 03.07.2021 and 04.07.2021, before the doctor who was conducting the medical examination. At this stage, according to the learned counsel it would not be appropriate for this Court consider as to which of the versions given by the complainant on 04.07.2021 or that on 03.07.2021 would be correct.
19. Learned counsel submits that in any case, there was no delay on part of the complainant in giving her statement on 04.07.2021 before the medical examination doctor as the incident is of the intervening night of 03.07.2021 and 04.07.2021. Keeping in view the heinous nature of the crime, the applicant's anticipatory bail should be dismissed.
20. This Court has considered the arguments of Mr. Kohli for the applicant as also Mr. Haider, learned APP for the State and Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant alongwith complainant who is present in person.
21. It is not disputed that the investigations have now been completed and the chargesheet has already been filed on 01.10.2021. It is also not disputed that this Court had already granted interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 09.12.2022. There has been no complaint so far as the applicant is concerned of his misusing the interim protection granted by this Court. That apart, the fact that the investigations are over qua the applicant provides good reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 5 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:28
22. That apart, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view what has been argued for the learned counsel for the applicant, no purpose would be now served in directing the applicant to be taken in custody.
23. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant can and ought to be protected under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C, 1973.
24. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions as follows:-
a) He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer and shall under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned;
b) He shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when required;
c) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
d) He shall provide his mobile number(s) to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times; and
e) In case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Investigating BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:28 Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
25. This Court has also taken note of the misbehaviour of Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Advocate, however, no other orders in respect thereto are being passed. However, the said observations are relevant so far as the present application is concerned, noting to the extent that the applicant and Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Advocate are told to be careful in future.
26. In case, there is any infraction of any of the conditions in the present bail application or said Mr. Ajay Tyagi, Advocate tries to interfere or influence present indulgence would be liable to be revoked.
27. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter.
28. The present bail application is accordingly disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2023/at BAIL APPLN. 3579/2022 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2023 at 21:02:28