Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR-DLND01-006457-2024
Bail Application No. 1183/2024
ANCHAL KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE
FIR No. 162 /2024
PS Connaught Place
U/Sec. 110 BNS
05.09.2024
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application filed
under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail of
applicant/accused Anchal Kumar Jha.
2. Facts in brief: On 03.08.2024, FIR bearing No.162/2024
was registered on the statement of complainant Amit Gupta
alleging therein that on 03.08.2024 at around 5 PM, when he was
at Hanuman Mandir, Baba Khadak Singh Mark, Connaught
Place, a scuffle over parking took place with the
applicant/accused, who was having car bearing no. DL1ZD6628.
During the altercation, it is alleged that accused used abusive
language and started fighting with the complainant. In the fight,
applicant/accused alleged to have pulled out a strick (danda) and
hit the complainant on his head. Due to the incident, the
complainant received injuries on his head and was rushed to
LHMC Hospital by the by-standers. On the same date i.e.
03.08.2024, applicant/accused was arrested and was sent to
judicial custody.
3. The arguments on the bail application are heard.
4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that
applicant is in custody since 04.08.2024. It is further submitted
by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that recovery has already
been effected; that applicant is a retired BSF personnel and is the
sole earning member of his family. It is also submitted that
FIR No. 162 /2024
PS Connaught Place
U/Sec. 110 BNS Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Thus, the bail application
is pressed upon.
5. On the other hand, the bail application is opposed by the
State assisted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the
ground that the applicant/accused was driving a cab at the time of
the incident and is threat to the society at large. It is also
submitted that applicant/accused hit the complainant with a
wooden stick with such an intensity that the stick broke into two
pieces. Further, it is submitted by the State that if applicant is set
at liberty, he can flee from the clutches of the law.
6. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
7. Applicant/accused is in custody since 04.08.2024. No
recovery is to be effected in the present matter. As per reply and
the arguments advanced before the court, no requirement for
custodial interrogation is shown.
8. This court is guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @
Baliay, 1977 SCC (4) 308, where the Apex Court observed as:
“The basic rule is bail, not jail, except-where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in
the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses
and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on
bail from the court.”
9. In light of the above, the applicant/accused Anchal Kumar
S/o Vijay Kumar, is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in
sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court/ Ld. Duty MM subject to the
following conditions:-
FIR No. 162 /2024
PS Connaught Place
U/Sec. 110 BNS Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
1) Applicant/accused shall not misuse the benefit of bail by
indulging himself in a similar offence.
2) Applicant/accused shall appear before the court on each
and every date of hearing.
3) Applicant/accused shall not try to influence/ threaten the
complainant or any other witness in the present case.
10. Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused. One copy of the order be sent to concerned
Jail Superintendent for compliance.
(Aparna Swami)
Bail Roster Judge
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
05.09.2024
FIR No. 162 /2024
PS Connaught Place
U/Sec. 110 BNS Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --