Ramanand v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 662/2016 RAMANAND ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with SI Mehrab Alam, PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi Mr Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 07.04.2016 1.

This is application under Section 438 of Cr.PC moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.1196/2015 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He also sustained injuries

for which cross-case will be filed. Co-accused have already been released on bail. As such, the petitioner be also released on bail. He is ready to join investigation.

3.

Learned APP duly assisted by the counsel for the complainant opposes the application on the ground that the role assigned to this applicant is similar to that of co-accused Jalandhar and Devanand whose bail applications have already been dismissed vide order dated 22nd February, 2016. Certified copy of the order has been placed on record. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of weapon of offence.

4.

As per the case of prosecution, on 1st November, 2015 at 1:00 pm, the applicant Devanand, Ramanand, Jalandhar Singh and Rajesh gave beatings to Divakar with lathi/danda and hit sariya and danda on the head of the complainant Chamak Lal Yadav due to which he suffered head injury. That being so, role assigned to this applicant is substantially the same as that of coaccused Jalandhar and Devanand whose applications have been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 22nd February, 2016. 5.

As per the status report, weapons of offence are required to be recovered. After the dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications, accused Jalandhar and Devanand have surrendered before the Court, however, subsequently, they are released on regular bail.

6.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the present applicant does not stand on a

different footing as that of co-accused so as to exercise discretion to grant of anticipatory bail in his favour. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. SUNITA GUPTA, J APRIL 07, 2016 rs