Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Of Nct Delhi

3. The case of prosecution is that on 21.10.2015, Rohit Bansal (injured witness) along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh (deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in two separate cars, i.e. Santro being registration No.UP-16-AM-6317 and Honda Civic being registration No.DL-7CF-4118. At around midnight 12.00-12.15, while dancing in the club, Rohit Bansal's hand struck an individual to whom he said "sorry". On this, the said individual abused Page No. 2 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

and questioned Rohit Bansal and quarrel started between the two groups and the said individual took a glass from one of his friends and hit the complainant-Rohit Bansal; but the matter was pacified by the bouncers/security personnel of the club. Thereafter, the complainant-Rohit Bansal and his friends were sent out of the club and after coming out of the club when they reached IIT Gate, then Rohit Bansal realized that his mobile phone was missing which might have fallen during the quarrel and he along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu came back in Santro car to the club. When they came back, they found that a Mercedes and EON car had blocked the road and a Bolero car was parked on the road-side. When they asked them to let them pass, one of the accused with whom an altercation had taken place in the club, threatened to teach them a lesson. Thereafter, all the accused/assailants started beating them; one of the assailants brought an iron rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh and when Rohit intervened to save Rupesh, he was also attacked. Thereafter, another assailant lifted a cemented brick and hit Rupesh on his head and they all ran towards different directions to save themselves leaving Santro car at the spot. When Rohit Bansal returned back to take his car, he saw Rupesh lying at Page No. 3 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

the spot unconscious and sustained multiple injuries on his body. Complainant Rohit along with one Sunil took Rupesh to the AIIMS Hospital and got him admitted in the Trauma Centre.

4. On receipt of DD regarding admission of Rupesh and Rohit Bansal (Complainant) in Trauma Centre AIIMS, ASI Dalbir Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Rohit Bansal, based on which FIR No.1187/2015 was registered under Section 307, Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Rupesh succumbed to injuries on 26.10.2015 and the FIR was altered into Sections 302, 308 IPC and 201 IPC read with 34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Tarun @ Maddy (A1), Vikas @ Shammi (A2), Ashish Balguer (A3), Anil Kumar Yadav (A4), Vikas Balguer (A5) and Vishal Balguer (A6); charge-sheet against Siddhant @ Goldy (A7) was filed under Section 201/212 IPC.

6. The order of granting bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) was assailed by the complainant before the High Court on the very next day. Pointing out that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the minute details of the case is not warranted and placing reliance upon Puran v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court thereby cancelling the bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4). Being aggrieved by cancellation of bail, Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) preferred appeal before this Court. Vide order dated 16.06.2017, this Court issued notice and stayed surrender of Anil Kumar Yadav (A4).

17. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Sessions Court considered both framing of charges and also grant of bail to accused Anil Kumar Yadav by way of a common order. On 27.02.2017, charges were framed against all the accused and bail was granted to appellant Anil Kumar Yadav. Insofar as framing of charges, in a case Page No. 10 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

Sessions Court was not right in raising doubts about the presence of accused Anil Kumar Yadav and his role in inflicting injuries to deceased Rupesh Tanwar as well as to the injured Rohit Bansal at the present stage. Since the Sessions Court proceeded to grant bail on erroneous footing and also going into the merits of the materials collected, the High Court, in our view, rightly set aside the order granting bail to the accused Anil Kumar Yadav.

Page No. 17 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

27. As rightly contended by the prosecution, apart from CCTV footage, there are other materials on record to show the "prima facie"

29. In the present case, the trial is at a very crucial stage. The trial court is yet to record the testimony of material witnesses including the Page No. 19 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

complainant as well as all the material witnesses. The trial has commenced and the trial is said to be posted for 04.12.2017. For ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the appellants are not enlarged on bail.

32. It was repeatedly urged that the High Court misdirected itself in interfering with the discretionary order of Sessions Court granting bail to the accused and there was absolutely nothing to show that the appellants are likely to abuse the bail or tamper with evidence. The court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. Of course, once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials, the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion, unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity. While considering the correctness of the order granting bail, the approach should be whether the order granting bail to the accused is vitiated by any serious infirmity, in which case, the High Court can certainly interfere with the exercise of discretion. The materials available on record prima facie indicating the involvement of the accused, possibility of accused tampering with witnesses and the gravity of the crime were Page No. 22 of 23 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ..... @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 4574/2017 ETC. ETC.

not kept in view by the Sessions Court. Since the Sessions Court granted bail to the appellants on irrelevant considerations and the same suffered from serious infirmity, the High Court rightly set aside the order of grant of bail to the accused. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

33. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. All the appellants/accused are directed to surrender before the Committal Court within one week from the date of this order.

November 14, 2017 Page No. 23 of 23