Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Avoiding Investigation
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has denied pre-arrest bail to an accused for avoiding investigation in a matter he alleged he was falsely implicated in.
The Courtroom was contemplating an anticipatory bail utility in a case registered below Part 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja noticed, “…..The legislation aides solely those that abide by legislation. Admittedly, the applicant has not joined the investigation and NBWs have since been issued towards him…..Maintaining in view the details and circumstances, the sort of accidents suffered by the complainant as additionally the truth that applicant is required for the aim of custodial interrogation, I don’t deem it acceptable to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.”
The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vivek Sood whereas the Respondent was represented by Extra Public Prosecutor Aman Usman.
Details of the Case
Senior Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the FIR is a basic case of a civil dispute, which has been given the color of felony unsuitable. It was submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated within the current case attributable to prior property dispute between the complainant’s household and the Applicant’s household. It was additional submitted that FIR is a results of vendetta arising out of the Complainant’s efforts to achieve an undue benefit by taking on the possession of the ancestral property.
The Senior Counsel additional submitted {that a} Civil Go well with was already pending in relation to the go well with property, which was later withdrawn by the Applicant’s mom attributable to a technical defect. It was averred that the incident was said to be the results of provocation by the complainant, who was illegally establishing a kitchen on the disputed property with none authorization or consent and when the applicant objected, complainant assaulted the applicant’s brother. It was additional submitted that the Applicant himself and his mom suffered accidents within the incident, however no cross FIR was registered towards the Complainant.
The Senior Counsel additional submitted that the character of accidents suffered by the Complainant are easy in nature and he was discharged from the hospital on the identical day and the Applicant is able to be a part of the investigation and subsequently no helpful goal shall be served by sending him to jail.
Then again, the Extra Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant suffered deep accidents and the Applicant isn’t aiding within the investigation and evading arrest.
Reasoning By Courtroom
The Courtroom, on the outset, famous that the ability of grant of anticipatory bail is an distinctive energy and ought to be exercised solely in distinctive instances and never as a matter in fact and mirrored on the accidents sustained by the Complainant.
It concluded that though the accidents are of easy nature however Applicant is required for the aim of custodial interrogation for the restoration of the weapon of offence.
“Maintaining in view the details and circumstances, the sort of accidents suffered by the complainant as additionally the truth that applicant is required for the aim of custodial interrogation, I don’t deem it acceptable to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused,” the Courtroom noticed.
The Software was accordingly dismissed.
Trigger Title: Ashish Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025:DHC:5136)
Appearances:
Applicant– Senior Advocate Vivek Sood, Advocate Pramod Kumar
Respondent– Extra Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, Advocate Hitesh Kumar
