Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 3
Bail Application No. 464/2023
STATE Vs. SANDEEP
FIR No. 450 /2022
PS Vasant Kunj (N)
U/Sec. 323/325/341/379/452/506/509/147/148/149/34 IPC &
30 Arms Act
14.03.2023
Present: Sh. R K Bhati, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Ankit Kumar Vats, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
IO Insp. Deepak in person.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of accused Sandeep.
Reply filed by the IO.
Arguments heard and record perused.
In the present case, FIR was registered for the
commission of offences 323/341/506/509/379/34 IPC. As per the FIR,
that on the complaint of RWA, the MCD had issued notice for closure
of Kelvin Fitness Studio and on 24.09.2022 the member of RWA and
locals were carrying out peaceful protest. It is alleged that the main
accused namely Ashu Chauhan accompanied with his number of
associates entered into the society and had beaten many persons. As
per the FIR, 3-4 persons were carrying pistol or arms. In the incident,
three persons were injured and one of them sustained grievous
injuries. During the investigation, the police collected the CCTV
footage, which revealed that more than 25 persons were involved in
the incident and they caused the breach of peace in the society. During
the investigation, Section 452/147/148/149/25 IPC were added.
-- 1 of 3 --
Page 2 of 3
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the present
FIR was registered out of vendata with mala fide motive to falsely
implicate the accused persons and the applicant/accused is
apprehending his arrest in this false FIR. It is further argued that on
the fateful day 50-80 persons approached the office where applicant
was employed and they misbehaved there. The mob alleged to have
beaten the employees there. It is further pointed out that one counter
FIR regarding the said FIR was registered by the applicant. It is
further argued that all the offences mentioned in the FIR are
punishable upto to seven years and the applicant should be granted
anticipatory bail.
Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP strongly opposed the bail
application on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the
accused is required to ascertain the identity of other associates who
could not apprehended so far. It is further argued that the
applicant/accused has been absconding and did not join the
investigation despite notice was being served to the applicant through
his father.
As per the reply filed by the IO, the CCTV footage of the
cameras installed by the PWD reveals that around 30 persons came to
the society in four cars and three motorcycles. They all gathered at the
spot and entered into the society after arrival of main accused namely
Ashu Chauhan. All the accused came at the spot in pre-planned
manner and entered the meeting place of RWA. So far, only eight
persons could have been identified including the main accused but
-- 2 of 3 --
Page 3 of 3
none of the accused disclosed further details of other co-accused
persons. As per the footage, five persons came in the Fortuner Car and
out of them, four were arrested but they did not disclose the details of
fifth person. With the persistent efforts and analysis of the CCTV, the
identity of fifth was disclosed as Sandeep i.e. applicant in this case.
As per IO, the applicant is one of the PSO to the accused.
The anticipatory bail of the main accused Ashu Chauhan
was dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2022 and the conditional
anticipatory bail was granted to Ashu Chauhan vide order dated
19.10.2022. The accused failed to adhere to the conditions imposed by
the court and his anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The
NBW against the accused Ashu Chauhan has already been issued. The
anticipatory bail application is opposed on the ground that at this
stage of investigation, the remaining 20 alleged persons are yet to be
identified and custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is
required. It is further submitted by the IO that in the course of
investigation, he served notice to the accused through his father but
despite that he did not appear.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and non
cooperative conduct of the applicant/accused, I am of the considered
opinion that it is the fit case to allow the accused to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application moved on behalf of the
applicant/accused Sandeep stand dismissed. Copy of order be given
dasti.
(Pawan Kumar)
Roster Judge/ASJ/14.03.2023
-- 3 of 3 --