Allowed

Amar Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Nov 2015BAIL APPLN./1584/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in an FIR alleging an attempt to murder. The court observed injuries were simple, the petitioner's name was not in the initial medical report, and there was no history of dowry harassment, leading to admission to bail with a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners admitted to anticipatory bail; released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety each in like amount subject to joining investigation.

Amar Singh Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

o/„

¶3

ORDER 05.11.2015

¶4

(1) PresentBail Applicationsunder Section438 Cr.P.C.have been filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.412/2015under Sections 307/34 IPG registeredat Police Station Chhawla. Statusreportsareon record.

¶5

(2) I have heardthe learnedSeniorCounselfor the petitionersand learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor assisted by the complainant's counsel and have examined the file. (3) The petitioners are closely related to the victim. Victim's marriage with Neeraj Chauhan took place on 10.02.2003 and two childrenwere bom out of this wedlock. On the day of incident,the victim was residingalong with her family members on the first floor in a separate portion at the matrimonialhome. Allegations in the complaintlodged on 13.07.2015 are that the petitionersand Neeraj Chauhanattemptedto kill her at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.07.2015by strangulatingher. She was takenfor medicalexaminationat Rao Tula Ram-MemorialHospital. Minor abrasion on left wrist; erythema around neck (circular)and abrasionon left side of neck were noticed on victim'sbody. Efforts were made out to fmd out the petitioners and Neeraj Chauhan. Theirwhereaboutscould not be ascertainedand they were declaredabsconderson 20.10.2015. (4) At the outset,it may be mentionedthat the petitionershad filed these petitionsseeking anticipatorybail on 04.08.2015prior to their declaring'absconders'on 20.10.2015. It is informedthatNeeraj BailAppl.Nos.1584-85/2015 2of4

¶6

¶7

Chauhan has since been arrested in this case on 29.10.2015. DD No.58A reeorded at 10.45 p.m. implieates only the victim's husband for giving her beatings. MLC also records alleged history of physical assault by her husband. The petitioners were not named or implicated at that time. During investigation, statement of ehild Aditya Chauhan, aged around eight years, was reeorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 15.07.2015. He gave detailed account as to how and under what cireumstances a quarrel had taken plaee between his father and mother. He did not implieate the petitioners for causing any injury to the vietim. Entire allegations were only against his father. Similarly, Tanish Chauhan, another ehild aged around ten years in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement assigned specific role to his father only for strangulation.

¶8

(5) The injuries sustained by the vietim were 'simple' in nature. After the occurrence, she was free to make telephone ealls to her parentswho arrivedat the spot and took her for medicalexamination. There was no complaintagainstthe petitioners at any time prior to the incident for harassing the eomplainant on aecount of dowry demands. (6) Considering the faets and circumstances of the case, the petitionersare admittedto antieipatorybail and in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ^50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaetion of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the condition that they shalljoin the investigation as and when required.

¶9

Bail ApplNos.1584-85/2015

¶10

Page 3 of 4

¶11

(7) The bail applicationsand all other pending applicationsstand disposed of.

¶12

NOVEMBER 05,2015 / sa

¶13

Bail Appl.Nos.1584-85/2015

¶14

Page 4 of 4

Amar Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Sharma & Anr. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Mandeep Singh & Anr. Vs the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Mukesh Kumar Munjal Vs Ritu Munjal

Dropati Vs Commisisoner of Police & Anr.

Rajat Mittal Vs State

Raghuvinder Harna Vs State of NCT of Delhi