Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No. 1509/2024
FIR No.342/2024
U/s 110/3(5)333 BNS
Police Station: Harsh Vihar
State vs. Kundan
Video Conferencing of the Court is functional.
28.08.2024
Present: Shri Kamal Akhter, Subs. Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None for accused/applicant.
None for complainant.
1. This is an application u/s 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C)
seeking grant of regular bail to accused/applicant.
2. Arguments already heard on 27.08.2024.
3. It is stated by Ld. Defence counsel that
accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by
complainant out of previous enmity. It is also submitted that
accused/applicant has been undergoing judicial custody since
03.08.2024. It is argued that no recovery of the blade allegedly used has
been effected from the accused/applicant despite collection of a CCTV
footage. It is submitted that a false and frivolous statement has been
made by the complainant who is a practicing advocate in Karkardooma
Court. It is argued that IO has recorded statement of residents of
locality who have denied use of any blade by accused/applicant. It is
stated that the injuries on the person of complainant are self-inflicted
and therefore, accused/applicant is entitled to grant of bail. It is stated
that IO did not give any notice to accused/applicant u/s 35 BNSS prior
to his arrest. It is also stated that accused/applicant shall abide by all the
conditions imposed by the Court, if ordered to be released on bail.
4. The bail application has been opposed by sub. Ld. Addl.
PP for State assisted by Ld. Counsel for complainant arguing that there
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
are serious allegations against the accused/applicant. It is submitted that
complainant was attacked by accused/applicant in broad day light and
the incident of quarrel was captured in the CCTV footage. It is
contended that since accused/applicant attacked the complainant using a
sharp edged weapon, an offence u/s 307 IPC is attracted while the
investigating agency is investigating the offence u/s 308 IPC only. It is
submitted that there are multiple injuries on the body of complainant as
per MLC, and accused/applicant followed the complainant to the
hospital reflecting his adverse behaviour towards the injured.
Prosecution has expressed apprehension of threat to the injured and
thus, opposed the bail application.
5. Submissions heard. Record perused.
6. This Court has carefully perused the FIR, MLC and the
reply of IO. The CCTV footage attached to case file was also played on
the computer installed in the Court Room.
It is noted that both complainant and accused/applicant
can be seen quarreling/grappling with each other in the initial part of the
CCTV footage while the substantial part of the said quarrel, wherein
complainant suffered the alleged injury by use of blade, is not visible in
the footage as the camera did not cover the spot of incident completely.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the contents of CCTV
footage
prima facie substantiate the allegations of complainant. As far
as the allegations of causing injuries on the chest of complainant by use
of a sharp edged weapon are concerned, the same find
prima facie
corroboration from the second CCTV footage where complainant can
be seen showing his injuries to the PCR official who reached the spot.
Further, the MLC has also recorded the nature of injuries suffered by
complainant.
It is contended by Ld. Defence counsel that the injuries
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
on the person of complainant are self-inflicted. It is stated that he went
inside his home after the alleged quarrel, caused himself those injuries
and returned outside wearing a shawl. It is observed that no opinion
regarding the said submissions of Ld. Defence counsel can be made at
this stage of investigation. Any such opinion may impact the ongoing
investigation on either side.
8. In the opinion of this Court, complainant has suffered
sharp injuries on his chest and there are allegations against
accused/applicant by name. The investigation is underway and grant of
bail to accused/applicant at this stage may hamper the remaining
investigation. Further, the probability of accused/applicant approaching
or threatening the complainant cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, no
reasonable or justified ground to enlarge accused/applicant on bail is
made out. Bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Nothing in the present order shall tantamount to
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of this case.
10. Application is disposed of accordingly.
11. In compliance of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case titled
‘In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail’, Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023, copy of this order be sent to
applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
12. Order
dasti from Bail Filing Section.
(ARVIND BANSAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi/28.08.2024
-- 3 of 3 --