Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
SC No. 351/2024
State Vs. Meena Kumari @ Meena Thekdarni and
ors. (applicant/accused Aabid)
FIR No. 306/2024
P.S. Harsh Vihar
U/S 308/348/380/458/460/147/149/34 IPC.
23.01.2025
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. Lakshay Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused has submitted that applicant/accused has
been falsely implicated in the present case; that
applicant/accused is in JC since 24.06.2024; that
applicant/accused has neither any concern with property in
question nor he has any enmity with complainant. 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
allegations against applicant in the present case. It has thus
-- 1 of 4 --
2
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 with other
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
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
-- 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 carrying a ladder along with one co-accused in the
relevant footage and thereafter, applicant/accused along with
other accused persons are stated to have given beatings to
the complainant and his family members, 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, 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.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
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.
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/23.01.2025
-- 4 of 4 --