Abhishek v. State (G.N.C.T Of Delhi)

$-32, 33, 34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1418/2018 ABHISHEK Petitioner Through;

Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates versus STATE (G.N.C.T OF DELHI) Respondent V Through:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Public ^ Prosecutor for the State with SI Satender Pooni, Police Station DBG Road, Delhi.

+ BAIL APPLN. 1419/2018 RAUNAK Petitioner Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates versus STATE (G.N.C.T OF DELHI) Respondent Through:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Satender Pooni, Police Station DBG Road, Delhi.

+ BAIL APPLN. 1420/2018 GAURAV Petitioner Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

versus STATE (G.N.C.T OF DELHI) Respondent Through:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Satender Pooni, Police Station DBG Road, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

ORDER

% 18.06.2018 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State seeks to place on record the status report. It is taken'on record. As per the allegations, the victim was given beatings by three persons. In the FIR itself, use of a sharp weapon is alleged. FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections 324/341/34 IPG. As per the opinion on the MLC, copy whereof is filed alongwith the status report, the nature of one of the injury is opined to be grievous and use of a sharp weapon is also opined. This attracted section 326. Weapon of the offence, of course, would be required to be recovered and for that the custody invited.

Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon judgment reported in AIR 2015 SC 3090, titled as Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and Another contended that in a case where the allegations of serious offence of rape came to be

subsequently added in a case originally framed under Section 506(2) IPG, an anticipatory bail was observed to be tenable. Having considered the ratio of the judgment, this court is of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of that case have no application to the case in hand. That was a case where the complaint was originally made only for the offence under Section 506(2) IPG and the allegation for the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPG came to be made much later. In the case in hand, not only the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered but perusal of the MLG also shows that the victim was badly beaten, whereby he received multiple injuries. No merit for anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

Dasti.

k A.K. CHAWLA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 18, 2018 pkb