Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
SC No. 351/2024
State Vs. Meena Kumari @ Meena Thekdarni and
ors. (applicant/accused Aarif and Ameen)
FIR No. 306/2024
P.S. Harsh Vihar
U/S 308/348/380/458/460/147/149/34 IPC.
05.05.2025
Present: Sh. Parmod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
None for applicants/accused persons.
These two applications under Section 483 BNSS
seeking regular bail moved on behalf of applicants/accused
persons, are fixed for orders.
O R D E R
1. By virtue of this common order, two applications u/s
483 BNSS on behalf of applicants/accused persons Aarif and
Ameen seeking regular bail, which have emanated out of a
pending trial before the court of undersigned, shall be
disposed of.
2. Sh. S.N. Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
Aarif has submitted that applicant/accused is in JC since
24.06.2024; that investigation of present case has been
completed and applicant/accused is no more required for the
purpose of any custodial interrogtion; that co-accused Meena
Thekedarni has already been granted bail by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi. 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.
-- 1 of 7 --
2
3. Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused
Ameen has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in
the present case; that main co-accused has already been
granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court in the present case;
that applicant/accused is aged about 52 years; that trial will
take long time to conclude. 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.
4. To begin with, Ld. Addl. PP has objected to the very
maintainability of the applications, given the fact that earlier
applications of both applicants/accused persons Ameen and
Aarif seeking regular bail were dismissed by the court of Ld.
ASJ-05 on 11.09.2024 and by this court on 24.12.2024
respectively. It has been further contended that the
application does not make out any fresh grounds or
circumstances for entertaining the same. Ld. Addl. PP has
further opposed the present applications by referring to the
serious nature of allegations against applicants/accused
persons in the present case. It has thus been prayed that bail
applications may be dismissed.
5. Ld. Counsel for applicants were enquired on the
aspect of maintainability of the application in the absence of
any change of circumstances after dismissal of earlier bail
applications of applicants/accused persons. In response to
the same, both Ld. Counsels for applicants/accused persons
have cited grant of bail to main accused Meena, as the
change of circumstance and thus, parity has been sought. In
-- 2 of 7 --
3
addition to the above, Ld. Counsel for accused Ameen has
also submitted that his earlier application was dismissed, as
charge-sheet was yet to be filed in the present case at that
point in time and now the same has been filed.
6. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of both
sides and perused the material on record.
7. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on
24.06.2024, applicants/accused persons along with other co-
accused persons entered into the house of complainant by
putting a ladder on the wall and climbing over the same; 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 applicants/accused
persons alongwith other associates can be seen climbing
over the wall by use of a ladder and entering the said
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 bone extending to petrous part with
hemotympanum and hemomastoid as well as fracture of
lateral wall of left orbit and as per the report of NCCT Head,
it has been opined that there are multiple fractures with
associated hemosinus, hemorrhagic contusions and
pneumocephalus and also the injury has been opined as
-- 3 of 7 --
4
‘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.
8. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that allegations
are serious in nature, whereby applicants/accused persons
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 also
punishable by imprisonment for life. In addition to this, it is
seen in the relevant footage that a ladder was carried by the
accused persons and thereafter, applicants/accused persons
along with other accused persons are stated to have entered
the premises illegally late in the night and 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.
9. Further, the vehicle, which is seen in the CCTV
footage present on record, in which other accused persons
had reached the property in question, is stated to be owned
by the applicant/accused Aarif. Also, both the
applicants/accused persons are clearly seen in the CCTV
footage with a stick in their hands, with which they are
stated to have given beatings to the victims, due to which
injury was inflicted and the same seems to be substantiated
by MLC of injured persons on record. Further, perusal of
-- 4 of 7 --
5
relevant CCTV footage on record clearly reveals that upon
alleged assault/attack by applicants/accused persons along
with other co-accused persons, some persons are clearly seen
being forcibly driven out of the property in question, which
prima facie corroborates the version of prosecution.
10. Moreover, both applicants/accused persons have been
specifically named by the complainant in the FIR and also
the presence of applicant/accused Aarif at the spot as well as
his involvement in the alleged incident, seems to be
corroborated by perusal of his own MLC on record, which
was prepared at about 3.30 am i.e. soon after the incident.
11. Further, it has been contended on behalf of State that
during the course of trespass/attack by the accused persons
including the applicants/accused persons, CCTV/DVR/
internet routers, installed in the said property were damaged
and said contention seems to have been substantiated, as
broken DVRs and internet router were seized in the present
case vide seizure memos.
12. Further, importantly, the contention by the Ld.
Counsels for applicants/accused persons that they are
entitled to parity, as main accused Meena has already been
granted bail by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, is not
sustainable, as she was granted bail on different
considerations to the effect that she is a 50 years old woman
and is in JC for almost an year.
13. Furthermore, in the considered opinion of this Court,
this application of applicant/accused Aarif does not mention
any fresh/change of circumstances after the earlier
-- 5 of 7 --
6
application of accused was dismissed vide order dated
24.12.2024 by this court on merits, moreso, as charge is yet
to be framed and evidence is yet to begin. As per settled law,
an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily
preclude another on a later occasion, subject to giving some
more material, further development or any different
considerations which is not the case herein. Reliance can be
placed upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka,
Crl. Appeal No. 601/2017 (28.03.2017). However, in the
case in hand, there is no change of circumstances as such.
14. Also, the contention of Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused Ameen that earlier bail application of
applicant was dismissed before filing of charge-sheet and
now charge-sheet has already been filed before the court and
matter is now pending for consideration on the point of
charge, so he is entitled to bail, does not have any force, as
although charge sheet has been filed in the present matter,
but that
ipso facto cannot be a ground for grant of bail and in
fact on the contrary, filing of the charge sheet in a way
crystalizes the allegations against the applicant/accused.
15. In addition to the above, it has also been contended by
Ld. Counsels that property in question did not belong to the
complainant and infact, main accused is the lawful owner of
the same, so it cannot be said that any trespass/house
breaking has been committed. However, the said contention
has absolutely no legal backing, as law does not permit even
the owner to resort to violence or force. Otherwise, charge is
-- 6 of 7 --
7
yet to be framed against accused persons and complainant
and other material 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.
16. 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 applicants/accused persons at this stage.
Accordingly, regular bail applications of the
applicants/accused persons Aarif and Ameen stand
dismissed.
(Vineet Kumar)
ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD/Delhi/05.05.2025
-- 7 of 7 --