Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No. 209/2025
Satish Kumar Shukla and others v. State
FIR No. 50/2025
PS Sonia Vihar
26.03.2025
Present: Sh. Manoj Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused.
Sh. Satyaprakash, C.G. Maurya, Deepika, Shashi, L.
Chand, Chandan Kannaujia, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant with complainant.
Deputed IO in person.
1. This is an anticipatory bail application moved on
behalf of the applicant/accused Satish Kumar Shukla.
2. Arguments heard on the anticipatory bail
application.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the complainant that
his anticipatory bail is not maintainable in SC/ST Cases.
4. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused relies on the
judgment of
Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (Crl.
Appeal No. 2622 of 2024) & Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of
India and Ors (WP © No. 1015 of 2018),It is submitted that in
this case, the Hon’ble Court observed that in some cases such
applications may be maintainable.
5. However, this Court has perused the judgment
wherein it is specifically mentioned that in some cases after the
perusal of the FIR, if the Court comes to the conclusion that
prima facie offence is not made out then in such cases,
applications for anticipatory bail may be considered. In the cited
judgment, the Court came to the conclusion that the essential
ingredients required to constitute the offence under SC/ST Act
-- 1 of 2 --
were not present. However, the same cannot be said so with
respect to the FIR filed in this case.
6. This is a cross FIR on the basis of same incident, on
the complaint of accused persons, an FIR was already registered
against the complainant side and they all are on bail. It is a cross
FIR where the FIR is registered after three months. However, the
anticipatory bail application in such cases is not maintainable.
Hence, the same is dismissed.
7. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the complainant made
certain submissions on merits and filed couple of citations with
request that the same may be considered, however, request is
declined as the Court has not gone into the merits and dismissed
the application due to technical reasons.
8. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Twinkle Wadhwa)
ASJ-02(NE)/ KKD/Delhi
26.03.2025/nk
-- 2 of 2 --