Delhi High Court - Orders
Muzammil vs State Government Of Nct Delhi on 27 April, 2023
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2342/2022
MUZAMMIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Fahad Khan, Advocate,
versus
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State
with SI Achal, P.S. Seemapuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 27.04.2023
1. The instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR bearing no. 476/2022, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2. The present case was registered on the complaint of one Ajay wherein it was alleged that he was a student of 'X' school and was in a friendship with a girl and after some days, the girl had developed friendship with another boy Fardeen. When complainant had tried to contact that girl again, Fardeen had threatened the complainant to kill him with a knife. On 26.05.2022, when the complainant was sitting with his friends Karan, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:13 Abhishek and Anurag in front of PWD Park near 'X' school, Seemapuri, Fardeen along with 2-3 friends including the present applicant had started abusing and threatening him. He had taken a knife out of his pocket and had tried to hit the complainant on his stomach with intention to kill him. However, the complainant had turned back, upon which Fardeen along with other co-accused persons including the present applicant had attacked him on his buttocks. Thereafter, co-accused Aman had picked up a piece of brick and had hit the complainant on his head. All of them, thereafter, had pushed him to the ground and had thrashed him very badly, and then had fled from the spot.
3. Learned APP for the State argued that the CCTV footage of the incident has been preserved which shows that present accused was present at the spot and he can be clearly seen going towards the complainant and another accused persons, and after some time, running back from the spot. It is also argued that his earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected on 21.07.2022 by the learned Trial Court but was granted interim protection on 04.08.202, subject to his joining investigation. It is further argued that no coercive action was taken against him and supplementary chargesheet has been prepared and will be filed in the court. It is stated that statements of the witnesses and the supplementary statement of the complainant also discloses involvement of the present applicant in the present offence. It is stated that his custodial interrogation is required for ascertaining the whereabouts of an accused who is absconding. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, states that after the applicant was granted interim protection, he has joined investigation and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:13 no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The injury has been opined to be simple in nature and, therefore, anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant.
5. I have heard arguments and have gone through the case file.
6. It is not disputed that chargesheet in this case has been filed and the present applicant has joined investigation. The argument of the State that the whereabouts of the co-accused who has been absconding have to be ascertained from the present accused/applicant and therefore, his custodial interrogation is required, cannot be a ground for denial of bail. The other co- accused persons were also arrested and were enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer could not inform this Court as to whether they had also not disclosed anything about the whereabouts of the co-accused who has been absconding and whether they are deliberately doing so. The perusal of the statements of the witnesses show that the stab injury was inflicted by Fardeen, however, the presence of the present accused/applicant is not denied by the counsel himself. The CCTV footage which was seen by this Court also shows that the present accused/applicant prima facie is seen going along with the co-accused persons towards the alleged place of incident and thereafter, after a few minutes running back along with other co accused persons.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is only 19 years of age, is a student and has joined investigation after this Court had directed him to do so, and that finding out the whereabouts of an absconder from him cannot be a ground for denial of bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:13 like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O concerned. The applicant shall remain available on mobile numbers; shared by him with the IO.
8. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 27, 2023/zp Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:28.04.2023 17:46:13