Application for anticipatory bail under Sections 308, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The court relied on medical evidence indicating injury to the victim and allegations in the FIR without examining merits on merits before rejecting the plea.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
Versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State with Investigating Officer ASI Satya Prakash, P.S. Seelampur, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
Vide this application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No.39/2018, registered at Police Station Seelampur under Sections 308/504/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On behalf of the applicant, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, that there was only a dispute in relation to the parking of a car, that there was no weapon of offence utilized, that there has been no weapon of offence recovered despite arrest of the co-accused and the co-accused having been taken in police custody remand and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and there was no fracture sustained by the injured on his nose and even if it is accepted that the applicant assaulted the petitioner, the ingredients of the alleged commission of the offence are not made out.
BAIL APPLN. 1005/2018
page
1 of 2
On behalf of the State, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is vehemently opposed submitting, inter alia, to the effect that the applicant is named in the FIR itself, that the allegations against the applicant are of having assaulted the injured with a danda on his nose. Without any observations on the merits and de-merits of the case, the MLC of the injured as issued by JPC Hospital No.11814/18 indicates injury on the nose of the injured and the applicant is named in the FIR as being one of the assaulters on the injured and thus taking the same into account, there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
MAY 04, 2018 ‘dc’
BAIL APPLN. 1005/2018 2 of 2
page
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving assault allegations under the Indian Penal Code where medical evidence indicates injury.
Whether the applicant's claim of false implication in a parking dispute warrants anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rashid
State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Anu Malhotra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
