Salauddin v. State

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 219/2018 & CRL.M.A. 1609/2018 SALAUDDIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Prakash Priyadarshi, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for State with SI Omveer, Nand Nagri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2018 CRL.M.A. 1609/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. BAIL APPLN. 219/2018 Submissions made on behalf of the either side. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case in view of the money dispute between the complainant and the brother of the applicant and that there is a separate FIR registered in relation thereto and that one of the co-accused in the instant case has already granted bail. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that even during the proceedings before the ASJ, the doctor had given the opinion to the effect that it was not possible to ascertain whether the injuries inflicted on the complainant were self-inflicted or inflicted by any other person. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the copy

of the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the brother of the applicant to contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

On behalf of the State the application is opposed submitting inter alia to the effect that the injuries sustained by the complainant/injured cannot be self-inflicted The MLC No. 2334 of Guru Teg Bahadur, Hospital, Shahdara indicates that there is an incised wound along the left shoulder and left arm anterior and incised wound over the left lumbar region which apparently without any observation on the merits or demerits cannot be termed to be self-inflicted injuries.

In the circumstances of the case, there is no ground of anticipatory bail. The application is disposed of. ANU MALHOTRA, J JANUARY 29, 2018 aj