Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
SC No. 351/2024
State Vs. Meena Kumari @ Meena Thekdarni and
ors. (applicant/accused Meena Kumari @
Meena Thekedarni)
FIR No. 306/2024
P.S. Harsh Vihar
U/S 308/348/380/458/460/147/149/34 IPC.
23.12.2024
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State, assisted by
Sh. P.L. Behl and Sh. Nikhil Saxena, Ld. Counsels for
complainant.
Sh. Danish Ali, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
This application under Section 439 Cr. PC seeking
regular bail moved on behalf of applicant, is fixed for orders.
O R D E R
1. By virtue of this order, application u/s 439 Cr. PC on
behalf of applicant/accused seeking regular bail, which has
emanated out of pending trial before the court of
undersigned, shall be disposed of.
2. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has submitted that
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case; that applicant/accused is aged about 50 years and she is
in JC since 24.06.2024; that applicant/accused has already
filed complaint against complainant for threat of
dispossession from property in dispute i.e. plot no. 18,
Khasra no. 548, Gali no.1, opposite Mata Mandir, village
Mandoli, Delhi-110093 and implication in false case; that
applicant/accused is registered owner of property in dispute.
It has been further submitted that applicant/accused is ready
-- 1 of 5 --
2
to abide by all the conditions imposed by the court, if she is
released on bail. Thus, Ld. Counsel has prayed for grant of
bail to the applicant/accused.
3. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State has opposed the
present application by referring to the serious nature of
allegations against applicant in the present case. It has thus
been prayed that bail application may be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of both
sides and perused the material on record.
5. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on
24.06.2024, applicant/accused accompanied by many of her
associates entered into the house of complainant by putting a
ladder on the wall and climbing over the wall; that
complainant and his family members were brutally beaten
and removed from the house; that some cash and valuable
articles were also robbed from the house of complainant; that
during investigation, applicant/accused alongwith other co-
accused persons were found inside the allegedly encroached
property; that during investigation, IO collected one CCTV
footage from a nearby property wherein applicant/accused
alongwith other associates can be seen climbing over the
wall by use of a ladder and entering the disputed property;
that three members of the family of complainant including
his brother Sanjeev are stated to have suffered injuries; that
victim Sanjeev Kumar has suffered fracture in the left
temporal and parietal bone with a fracture lateral wall of left
orbital wall and the report of NCCT Head Scan has opined
multiple fractures with hemorrhagic contusions with edema
-- 2 of 5 --
3
and also the injury has been opined as ‘grievous’ in nature.
During investigation, accused persons were arrested in the
present case and after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the court.
6. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that allegations
are serious in nature, whereby applicant/accused along with
co-accused persons are stated to have formed an unlawful
assembly and in prosecution of common object of the same,
applicant/accused along with other accused persons are
stated to have committed lurking house trespass by night or
house breaking by night, which is punishable by
imprisonment for life. In addition to this, applicant/accused
along with other accused persons are stated to have given
beatings to the family members of complainant, due to
which one of the injured persons Sanjeev Kumar, who is the
brother of complainant, has sustained grievous injuries,
while others have sustained simple injuries. Further, as per
charge-sheet,
lathis, dandas and bricks were used to execute
the aforesaid assault/attack and as per record, nine
dandas
were seized by the IO of the case. Further, the aforesaid
allegations and injuries thereof seem to be corroborated by
the persual of the MLCs on record. Further, it has been
contended on behalf of State during the course of
trespass/attack by the accused persons including the
applicant/accused, ladders were used in order to enter the
property in question and also CCTV/DVR/internet routers,
installed in the said property were damaged. Pertinently, the
contention seems to have some force as the broken DVRs
-- 3 of 5 --
4
and internet router were seized in the present case vide
seizure memo. Furthermore, as per a CCTV footage placed
on record, the applicant/accused along with other accused
persons are clearly seen stepping out of a Innova car and
approaching the property in question at the relevant time and
the incident of assault/attack seems to have been captured in
another footage, which is also part of record, wherein some
persons are seen forcibly being dispossessed from the
property in question. Moreover, the presence of
applicant/accused at the spot seems to be substantiated upon
perusal of her arrest memo, which clearly indicates that she
was arrested from the said property.
7. Further, the contention of Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused that in reality, applicant/accused is the
owner of the property in question and she was the one, who
was wrongfully dispossessed from the property in question
by the complainant, does not seem to have much weight as
upon enquiry, he could not apprise this court as to what
civil/criminal action was taken by the applicant/accused
against the complainant for recovering the possession of
property in question.
8. In addition to the above, charge is yet to be framed
against accused persons and complainant and other public
witnesses are yet to be examined in the present case.
Therefore, considering the audacity of the act alleged to have
been committed, the possibility of threatening/influencing
the said witnesses cannot be ruled out, in case relief sought
is granted to the applicant/accused at this stage.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
9. Hence, in view of the above discussion and
considering the nature of accusations as well as facts and
circumstances in totality, this court is not inclined to grant
bail to applicant/accused at this stage.
Accordingly, regular bail application of the
applicant/accused stands dismissed.
(Vineet Kumar)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/23.12.2024
-- 5 of 5 --