Sheela Vs. State

Sheela vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 17, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/910448

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/910448
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hima Kohli, J.
Decided On: Feb 17, 2011
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1869/2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

[MR. JUSTICE .B.MANOHAR, J.] This W.P. filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying ,to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the officials. staff and workmen of the petitioner company and also the officials of the ING vysya bank to shift and transport materials from the ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheela

Advocate Mr. Ravi Gupta; Ms. Arti Bhatnagar, Advs.

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. Navin Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 34

Excerpt

[mr. justice .b.manohar, j.] this w.p. filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying ,to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the officials. staff and workmen of the petitioner company and also the officials of the ing vysya bank to shift and transport materials from the factory premises situated at no.7 kiadb industrial area. 2nd phase. jigani anekal taluk. bangalore 562106......bail to a co-accused on 14.02.2011, in bail appln. no.16/2011 and prays that bail be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. a status report was called for from the state. the same has been filed. as per the status report, the undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased sh.virender singh was residing at rohini along with his family members and ran a printing press. he had a relationship with the petitioner, who was stated to be in the habit of frequently taking money from the deceased. the complainant was opposed to his brother's relationship with the petitioner. on the date of the crime, i.e., on 27.1.2009, when the deceased did not return home till late night, as per the complainant, he rushed to the residence of the petitioner at 1 am only to find the body of his brother lying in front of house no.5/33, block e-1, sector-15, rohini. in the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner and one yogesh dagar were holding the legs of the deceased and the other accused persons were assaulting him with fists and kicks at the instigation of the petitioner. thereafter, when a car reached the spot, the complainant ran to his house to call his brothers and when he returned at the place of occurrence, he found that the deceased had been removed to a hospital by the police, where he was declared as brought dead. apart from the petitioner, yogesh dagar, jitender soni and sushila chaudhary were also arrested in the case and charges were framed against them.3. learned app for the state submits that the charge sheet was filed and charges have been framed and out of the twenty witnesses listed by the prosecution, five public witnesses have already been examined, thus leaving the remaining formal witnesses, including medical witnesses and police officials still to be examined.4. the stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has not made any allegation against the petitioner in his testimony, is borne out from a perusal of the said testimony.....

Full Judgment

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of bail in FIR No.400/2009 lodged under Sections 302/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. The complainant herein is the brother of the deceased.

2. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of this Court granting bail to a co-accused on 14.02.2011, in Bail Appln. No.16/2011 and prays that bail be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. A Status Report was called for from the State. The same has been filed. As per the Status Report, the undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased Sh.Virender Singh was residing at Rohini along with his family members and ran a printing press. He had a relationship with the petitioner, who was stated to be in the habit of frequently taking money from the deceased. The complainant was opposed to his brother's relationship with the petitioner. On the date of the crime, i.e., on 27.1.2009, when the deceased did not return home till late night, as per the complainant, he rushed to the residence of the petitioner at 1 AM only to find the body of his brother lying in front of House No.5/33, Block E-1, Sector-15, Rohini. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner and one Yogesh Dagar were holding the legs of the deceased and the other accused persons were assaulting him with fists and kicks at the instigation of the petitioner. Thereafter, when a car reached the spot, the complainant ran to his house to call his brothers and when he returned at the place of occurrence, he found that the deceased had been removed to a hospital by the police, where he was declared as brought dead. Apart from the petitioner, Yogesh Dagar, Jitender Soni and Sushila Chaudhary were also arrested in the case and charges were framed against them.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that the charge sheet was filed and charges have been framed and out of the twenty witnesses listed by the prosecution, five public witnesses have already been examined, thus leaving the remaining formal witnesses, including medical witnesses and police officials still to be examined.

4. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has not made any allegation against the petitioner in his testimony, is borne out from a perusal of the said testimony placed on record, which indicates that the complainant(PW-1) has resiled from his statements made against the petitioner and he has even refused to identify her. Learned APP for the State confirms the aforesaid position.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted on bail subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the investigation while appearing before the arresting officer/IO as and when called by him and will not create any hindrance or impediment during the course of investigation. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without obtaining the prior permission from the trial Court.

6. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the relief sought in the present petition and shall not in any manner influence the trial court in proceeding further with the case.

7. The petition is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Sheela vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Hima Kohli, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C) - Section 439; Ind...

Criminal