Allowed

Mazhar v. State(Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC8 Feb 2024BAIL APPLN./467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted personal bail to the petitioner in an anticipatory bail application citing Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, subject to specific conditions including joining investigation and not threatening witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Personal bail granted subject to a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety and conditions to join investigation, not threaten witnesses, and avoid the complainant's vicinity.

Mazhar Vs State(Nct of Delhi) — Anticipatory Bail | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 467/2024 MAZHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anurag Jain, Mr.Sanchit Saini and Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocates.

¶4

versus STATE(NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State with ASI Champat Singh, PS New Usmanpur. Mr.Piyush Bhardwaj, Mr.Sandeep Tyagi, Mr.Deepak Kr.Tyagi, Mr.Rajat Rajoria Singh and Mr.Adesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocates for complainant.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA O R D E R

¶7

% 08.02.2024

¶8

CRL.M.A. 4001/2024

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶10

Application stands disposed of.

¶11

BAIL APPLN. 467/2024

¶12

An application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 4/2024 under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC & Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 registered at P.S. New Usmanpur. Section 307 IPC was subsequently invoked.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:51

¶14

Issue notice. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice and accepts notice and is also assisted by learned counsel for complainant.

¶15

In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, on 02.01.2024, an altercation took place since the complainant demanded price of two glasses of tea from the accused. Complainant is alleged to have been further assaulted by the petitioner and one Md. Dilshad. It is alleged that accused tried to crush the complainant and one Gulab under the car, which fleeing from the spot. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC & Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 307 IPC was subsequently invoked by the prosecution.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course of events stands recorded in the video clippings which have been also relied upon by the prosecution. It is submitted that the injuries are simple in nature and Section 307 IPC has been wrongly invoked only on the allegations of an attempt to crush the complainant. The injured is stated to have been discharged from the hospital on the very same day. It is pointed out that the petitioner was merely sitting in the passenger seat and the car was driven by Mohd. Dilshad, who is already in custody since 04.01.2024. The petitioner is stated to be with clean past antecedents and is running a restaurant.

¶17

On the other hand, application has been opposed by the learned APP for the State along with learned counsel for the complainant. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was admittedly not driving the car and was seated on passenger’s seat at the time of leaving the spot. The injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and MLC reflects abrasion wound over right forearm. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:51

¶20

The video clippings also reflect that an attempt was made to damage the car while the accused were leaving the spot, which led to an impulsive reaction by the co-accused who was driving the car.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO, PS concerned and subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation today itself (i.e. 08.02.2024) at 4:00 PM;

¶23

(ii) Petitioner shall not threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner;

¶24

(iii) Petitioner shall not visit the area in the vicinity of 01 km. of the shop of the complainant.

¶25

Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 8, 2024/v

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:51

Mazhar v. State(Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazhar v. State(Nct of Delhi)

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

Sunil Bajaj Vs State of Delhi NCT

State Vs Amit Gautam

Mr Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs Raja Arora

Sanjeev Kumar Panchal & Ors. Vs State (Gnctd) & Anr.

Janakraj & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ravinder@Rinku Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Thr. SHO Cyber