Bharti and anr. Vs the State

Bharti and anr vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 04, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904297

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/904297
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr.Shiv Narayan Dhingra. J
Decided On: Oct 04, 2010
Case Number: Bail Application No.1619 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.01.1997 in A.S.No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.1996 in O.S.No.605 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 438. 160 ; Indian Penai Code (IPC) - sections 325, 308, 323

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bharti and anr

Advocate Prathvi Raj , Mr. Shahid Ali Advs.

Respondent

The State

Advocate Mr. Anil Soni , Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 438. 160 ; Indian Penai Code (IPC) - sections 325, 308, 323

Excerpt

appeal filed under section 100 of code of civil procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.1997 in a.s.no.33 of 1996 on the file of the principal district judge, thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1996 in o.s.no.605 of 1991 on the file of the district munsif, polur. .....took me to their home forcibly and started beating me mercilessly. ram niwas asked others to kill me and i should not go alive. on this, shantiswroop, bharti, ram babu and ram gopal caught my both hands and legs. kunwar pal with a danda hit me on my head, prithivi raj started pressing my neck and vishal and ghaploo hit me on my back with some hard object, somebody gave a call to police station and pcr van came."4. from the manner in which the entire incident has been narrated and described, it is apparent that an effort has been made to name each male family member in the quarrel and for each part of the body one or two persons have been named. however, considering that the injuries received by the complainant were simple blunt in nature and the fact that there was previous history of quarrel between the two families and the complainant was also facing criminal case also looking at the fact that custodial interrogation was not required in view of the nature of incident, i allow the applications anticipatory bail. it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer/sho concerned. however, it is directed that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when called by the investigating officer by a written notice under section 160 cr.p.c.5. with above order, both the above petitions stand disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER

1. These two petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C have been preferred by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail.

2. An FIR under Section 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioners at the instance of injured Hari Shankar. The MLC of Hari Shankar shows that he received simple blunt injuries. It is submitted by counsels for the petitioners/accused that the entire family of the petitioners has been falsely named by the complainant in his report. The complainant and his other family members had earlier also quarreled with the petitioners and a case under Section 325, 308,323 IPC was going on against the complainant and other accused persons and in that context only the entire family has been roped in and named. On the other hand, the counsel for complainant who was assisting the State counsel showed certain photographs of the complainant showing various injury marks on the body of complainant and he submitted that the residence welfare association of the area had also made a complaint against the petitioners as they were anti social elements and were acting with highhandedness.

3. A perusal of complaint made by the injured shows that the complainant/injured described the incident in following manner: "I had gone with Babu Lal Sharma, Prashant, Santosh Kumar and other 2/3 persons to Balaji Temple on the occasion of Janamastmi for cleaning the temple. While I was there, Ram Niwas along with his sons Shanti Swaroop, Bharti, Ram Babu, Ram Gopal, Kunwar Pal, Prithivi Raj and one of his associates Vihsal and Ghaploo came there and they all caught me and took me to their home forcibly and started beating me mercilessly. Ram Niwas asked others to kill me and I should not go alive. On this, Shantiswroop, Bharti, Ram Babu and Ram Gopal caught my both hands and legs. Kunwar Pal with a danda hit me on my head, Prithivi Raj started pressing my neck and Vishal and Ghaploo hit me on my back with some hard object, somebody gave a call to police station and PCR van came."

4. From the manner in which the entire incident has been narrated and described, it is apparent that an effort has been made to name each male family member in the quarrel and for each part of the body one or two persons have been named. However, considering that the injuries received by the complainant were simple blunt in nature and the fact that there was previous history of quarrel between the two families and the complainant was also facing criminal case also looking at the fact that custodial interrogation was not required in view of the nature of incident, I allow the applications anticipatory bail. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer/SHO concerned. However, it is directed that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when called by the investigating officer by a written notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

5. With above order, both the above petitions stand disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Bharti and anr vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mr.Shiv Narayan Dhingra. J Acts & Sections Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 438. 160 ; India...

Criminal