Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
SC No. 351/2024
State Vs. Meena Kumari @ Meena Thekdarni and
ors. (applicant/accused Rashid Pahalwan)
FIR No. 306/2024
P.S. Harsh Vihar
U/S 308/348/380/458/460/147/149/34 IPC.
25.03.2025
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None 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 483 BNSS 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. Sh. Anil Hooda, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has
submitted that applicant/accused was arrested in the present
case on 24.06.2024 and since then he is in JC; that charge-
sheet in the present case has already been filed; that there are
18 PWs to be examined in the present case and trial will take
considerable time to complete; that no recovery has been
effected from applicant/accused, who has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted
that applicant/accused is ready to abide by all the conditions
imposed by the court, if he 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
-- 1 of 4 --
2
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 along with other accused
persons entered into the house of complainant by putting a
ladder 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 and the report of NCCT Head Scan has opined
multiple fractures with hemorrhagic contusions with edema
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 concerned.
6. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that allegations
are serious in nature, whereby applicant/accused along with
-- 2 of 4 --
3
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 also punishable by
imprisonment for life. In addition to this, applicant/accused
is seen beating the complainant with kicks and fists along
with co-accused persons in the relevant footage and
thereafter, applicant/accused along with other accused
persons are seen at the spot in the CCTV footage on the
night of incident. Further, perusal of relevant CCTV footage
on record clearly reveals that upon alleged assault/attack by
applicant/accused along with other co-accused persons, some
persons are clearly seen being forcibly driven out of the
property in question, which in a way corroborates the
version of prosecution.
7. Further, it has been contended on behalf of State that
during the course of trespass/attack by the accused persons
including the applicant/accused, CCTV/DVR/internet
routers, installed in the said property were damaged.
Pertinently, the said contention seems to have some force as
the broken DVRs and internet router were seized in the
present case vide seizure memo.
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
-- 3 of 4 --
4
the said witnesses cannot be ruled out, in case relief sought
is granted to the applicant/accused at this stage.
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/25.03.2025
-- 4 of 4 --