Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 564 (DEL)

Hari Chand v. Stateand Another

2022-03-08

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

body2022
ORDER 1. The instant petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted to the Respondent No. 2/Accused (hereinafter Respondent No. 2) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Dwarka vide its order dated 20th January, 2022, passed in Bail Application No. 129/2022 titled State v. Virender Kumar Syal, in FIR No. 617/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Dwarka South. 2. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a handicapped person with 60 per cent disability in his leg due to polio, and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had beaten the petitioner with danda (wooden stick) which caused multiple fractures on his legs and hand. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has committed a grave offence under the provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and he has referred to Section 92 of the said Act and submitted that according to the said provision, the offence committed by the Respondent No. 2 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 5 years. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also shown the CCTV footage to this Court and submitted that the petitioner was beaten by the Respondent No. 2 continuously even after the petitioner fell down. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that after looking at the footage of the CCTV, it is crystal clear that the Respondent No. 2 has given multiple injuries to the disabled person/petitioner, and therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was not entitled to any discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. of the Court concerned. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer aged about 55 years and he is the president of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of his society for more than 20 years. He is a reputed person in the society and was beaten by Respondent no. 2 grievously. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer aged about 55 years and he is the president of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of his society for more than 20 years. He is a reputed person in the society and was beaten by Respondent no. 2 grievously. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is a fit case for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Court below. 7. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for State has supported the status report and submitted that the complaint got registered and MLC of the petitioner was done. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. It is also submitted that a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. had been served to Respondent No. 2 on 12 December, 2021 to join the investigation on 13 December, 2021 but he had sent a request to provide some more time to join investigation due to his medical condition. 8. Learned APP for State submitted that Respondent No. 2 has joined the investigation on 21st January, 2022 after he was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below. With reference to the para 10 of the status report, it is submitted that upon joining the investigation, Respondent No. 2 was asked to produce the weapon of offence i.e. danda (wooden stick) to the Investigating Officer, but the same has not yet been produced by him. 9. Learned APP has also prayed for the cancellation of the bail and supported the version, contentions and submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 10. Per contra, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that he has always cooperated with the investigation and has appeared on 21st January, 2022 and joined the investigation after 20 December, 2021. Learned senior counsel undertakes that Respondent No. 2 has not violated any condition as imposed by the Court below while granting the anticipatory bail. 11. Learned senior counsel, on instructions, undertakes that Respondent No. 2 shall cooperate in the investigation in future too, and shall abide by all conditions imposed by the Court below. Learned senior counsel undertakes that Respondent No. 2 has not violated any condition as imposed by the Court below while granting the anticipatory bail. 11. Learned senior counsel, on instructions, undertakes that Respondent No. 2 shall cooperate in the investigation in future too, and shall abide by all conditions imposed by the Court below. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 2 is a senior citizen aged 64 years, is a retired army person, has a good reputation in the society and also has clean antecedents. There are no merits in the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the contentions made in the petition for cancellation of the bail. The instant petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 20 January, 2022 passed by the Court below, the FIR and the status report filed by the State. It is admitted fact that the incident has taken place at the society gate and due to some dispute regarding the entrance of granddaughter of the Respondent No. 2, the guard of the society has objected for entrance of the car because there was no sticker of the society on the car. Due to this, an altercation occurred between the guard, granddaughter and Respondent No. 2. After that the petitioner came to that place and intervened in the matter, due to which the incident as per the FIR No. 617/2021 took place. There are no allegations against the Respondent No. 2 in the status report that he has not joined the investigation after getting the bail from the Court below. It is also an admitted fact that the danda (wooden stick) has not been recovered yet and has to be recovered from Respondent No. 2. It is also an admitted fact that there is no criminal history of Respondent No. 2 and he has clean antecedents. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and the CCTV footage, this Court does not find any ground for invoking the extra jurisdictional power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C to allow the instant petition and interfere with the order dated 20 January, 2022 passed by the Court below. 15. 15. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.