BAIL APPLN./2594/2008 of NATHU RAM Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 24 December 2008

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment? allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in NO

the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

Issue notice to the State. Mr.Sanjay Lao, learned APP accepts notice.

The counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner has contended that he has clean antecedents and no complaint is pending against him in any Court of law as well as in any police station. It is further contended that the investigation of the present case is complete and the petitioner is no more required and nothing incriminating is to be recovered either from his possession or even at his instance.

It is further contended that at the time of incident he was not present and he is resident of Shahpur Jat village where he has ancestral properties. However, the family of the applicant is living at Village Hiranki, New Delhi.

It is further contended that even according to the prosecution case several persons had gathered at the time of incidents out of which some of the persons were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code who according to petitioner have not implicated him in any manner with the incident of assault. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the name of the petitioner was involved by the father of the injured as he is constable in Delhi Police and there had been disputes earlier which, however, had been settled even according to the allegations made in the FIR.

Even according to the allegations made in the FIR the injured was attacked by Billu with a stone and according to the allegations in the FIR the petitioner along with two others had instigated him. The injured was admitted to Jaiprakash Narain Trauma Centre and was discharged on 14[th] November, 2008. The injured is also alleged to had been admitted to Paryag Hospital and Research Centre, Noida and was discharged from there on 23[rd] November, 2008.

It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the medical report conducted by the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital at

Trauma Centre the injured was under the influence of liquor on the date of incident.

Considering the antecedents of the petitioner and the allegations regarding the nature and gravity of accusations the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall take part in the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed by him. The petitioner shall not try to influence any of the witnesses in any manner.

With these directions the petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

December 24, 2008

‘k’

ANIL KUMAR (Vacation Judge)