Delhi High Court - Orders
Santosh vs State on 27 May, 2021
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1785/2021
SANTOSH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Girish Chander, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 27.05.2021 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
1. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No.75/2021 dated 08.02.2021 registered at Police Station Ranhola for offence punishable under Sections 341/323/308/34 IPC.
2. It is stated in the complaint that on 07.02.2021, at about 9:30 PM in the evening, complainant's friend one Bhupender came to meet him. It is stated that the neighbour of the complainant, one Ajeet came there and there and Bhupender and Ajeet exchanged harsh words. It is stated that the complainant tried to mediate between them and Bhupender went away. It is stated that Ajeet came there with his father and brother/the petitioner herein. It is stated that the complainant's father and elder brother also came there to save the complainant. It is further stated that Ajeet, Ajeet's father, the petitioner herein along with a few other persons started beating the BAIL APPLN. 1785/2021 Page 1 of 4 complainant, his father and brother with sticks. Police came there and took the complainant, his father and brother to DDU Hospital. FIR No.75/2021 dated 08.02.2021, was registered at Police Station Ranhola for offence punishable under Sections 341/323/308/34 IPC.
3. The petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge-04, West Tis Hazari Courts, by an order dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the instant bail application seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. Girish Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323 and 308 IPC and the maximum sentence under these sections is seven years or less, he therefore states that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C has to issued first asking the petitioner to join investigation. He states that the petitioner apprehends arrest as the Police is not adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 41A Cr.P.C. He further states that the petitioner's father and brother have been arrested and police custody of the petitioner was not sought for by the Police at that time. He therefore states that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and therefore the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in the instant FIR. He further states that, in fact, the complainant's brother and father attacked petitioner's brother and the father and they were beaten up mercilessly but the Police did not registered a case against them.
5. Per contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is evading arrest and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C have already been initiated against the petitioner. She would state that the BAIL APPLN. 1785/2021 Page 2 of 4 petitioner is accused of a very serious offence punishable under Section 308 IPC and anticipatory bail should not be granted to him.
6. Heard Mr. Girish Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.
7. It is well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation (refer Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303).
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his brother and father were beaten up cannot be accepted. There is no complaint. There is nothing on record to show that they went to the higher authorities under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C complaining that their FIR is not being registered or that they have filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate for a direction to file an FIR in their complaint. The fact that when the petitioner's brother and father were arrested and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner was sought for by the Police and hence is custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at all does not hold any ground. The investigation is still at a BAIL APPLN. 1785/2021 Page 3 of 4 nascent stage. The fact that the petitioner is evading arrest and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C have been initiated against him is a vital consideration though not determinative. The judgment of this Court relied on by the petitioner in Jagdish Nautiyal Vs. State, Manu/De/6227/2012, cannot be said to be of universal application and it does not mean that when proceedings are initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C against an accused who is evading arrest is of no consequence at all in every case. The petitioner is accused of a serious offence. The possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice or exerting pressure on the witnesses cannot be ruled out at this juncture.
9. In view of the above, this Court feels that the case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is not made out.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MAY 27, 2021 Rahul BAIL APPLN. 1785/2021 Page 4 of 4