Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 Page 1 of 4 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 % Judgment reserved on: 21st January, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 25th January, 2010 1. Ram Chand @ Raju, S/o. Shri Om Prakash Verma, R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti, Timarpur, Delhi-110054. 2. Harish, S/o. Shri Om Prakash Verma, R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti, Timarpur, Delhi-110054. 3. Om Prakash Verma, S/o. Shri Siyaram, R/o. 1748, Sanjay Basti, Timarpur, Delhi-110054. ….Petitioners. Through: Mr. Vinod Khanna, Adv. Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) … Respondent. Through: Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 Page 2 of 4 V.B.Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of application for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioners. 2. Present case was registered on the statement of the complainant Anil Kumar on 19.10.2009, regarding the alleged occurrence on 17.10.2009 wherein, complainant has alleged that when he with his friend Rockey was going to police station for lodging complaint against petitioner No.1 and have reached near Balak Ram Bus Stand, petitioner No.1 intervened and asked him where he was going. Complainant further alleges that Sonu, Tiku and Arjun were also present there at that time. Sonu caught hold of the complainant from behind and said “Ram Chand maar saale ko”. Rockey was caught by Tiku and the complainant was dragged in the Gali. Petitioner No.1 picked a danda and hit him on his head. In the meanwhile, his father (petitioner No.3) and brother Harish (petitioner No.2) came there with dandas and started beating the complainant. On receiving injuries, the complainant fell down and even then the petitioners continued beating him. It was further alleged that the complainant became unconscious and when he was taken in the police van he regained consciousness and saw his brother Shiv Kumar and Deepak are also having received injuries. It is further alleged that petitioners had caused injuries to him with the intention to kill him. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Initially, a Kalandara under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C. was prepared against petitioner No.1. Later on, present FIR was Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 Page 3 of 4 registered on 19th October, 2009. There has been delay in lodging of the FIR and as such petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for State that as per statement of the complainant, present petitioners gave beating with danda to the complainant and his brothers Shiv Kumar and Deepak who also received injuries. As per medical report, complainant has suffered grievous injuries, while two other injured received simple injuries. Petitioners are absconding and they are not joining the investigation and as such bail application should be dismissed. 5. As per FIR, serious allegations have been made against petitioners. Petitioners have caused serious injuries to one of the injured, while simple injuries have been caused to other two injured. 6. In Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 366, the Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:- “(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only; (ii) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well; (iii) In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” 7. Supreme Court in a recent decision, HDFC Vs. J.J. Mannan @ J. M. John Paul and Anr.; 2009 (14) SCALE 724, observed; “The object of Section 438 Cr. P. C has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy Bail Appl. No.2490/2009 Page 4 of 4 the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the same time the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P. C. cannot also be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the Court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to violence to the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P. C., since even though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and charge is framed against him he may still not appear before the Court at all even during the trial. Section 438 Cr. P. C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail”. 8. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons and the fact that petitioners are absconding, no ground is made out for anticipatory bail. 9. Hence, application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of petitioners is hereby dismissed. 25th January, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J. RB