Anita vs State (NCT) Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This application for bail has been made by accused who is being tried u/s 302/34/341/427/149 IPC.

Brief facts leading to accusation of the applicant, as given in the FIR, are that her neighbour Atul Sharma alleged that on 19th December, 2009, at about 9.30 am he was going from his home along with his younger brother Sachin Sharma on his motorcycle carrying a gas cylinder and when they reached in front of the house of Hari Dutt @ Hari Om Sharma, a brick fell from above on him from the roof of his house. The brick did not hit him and it struck the fuel tank of his motorcycle. He saw upside and found Ram Niwas and his wife Saroj Sharma saying "you got saved, but, your motorcycle has been damaged". On hearing this Atul Sharma got scared and ran away from there. His aunt (bua) Maya Devi who used to live at C-1/713, Harsh Vihar came out and told Ram Niwas and Saroj Sharma as to why her nephew was being targeted. On her saying so Hari Dutt @ Hari Om Sharma retorted "Her nephew got saved but she should be taught a lesson?. In the mean time wife of Hari Om Sharma namely Yashoda along with her nieces, wife and daughters of Dinesh and his nephew came out in the gali. They all caught hold of his bua Maya Devi. Brajesh, Hari Dutt and Ram Niwas started hitting Maya Devi with bricks and Ashish and Raju started abusing her. They all gave beatings to his bua with slaps and fists. His bua received injuries on her head, started bleeding and became unconscious. Someone called police at 100 number and PCR van took his bua to G.T.B. hospital. He made a complaint that Hari Dutt, Ram Niwas, Brajesh, Yashoda Devi, Saroj Sharma, Anita wife of Brajesh, Ashish, Raju and daughters of Brajesh all together threw bricks on his motorcycle and gave beatings to his bua. They all should be brought to book.

It is submitted by counsel for accused/Petitioner that no specific role has been assigned to Anita and the facts stated in the complaint and testimony of witnesses at the most would attract Section 304 Part-II and not Section 302 IPC as it is not the case of even complainant that there was an intention to murder his bua and the only allegation made was that they all gave beating to his bua to teach her a lesson. It is also the case of prosecution that none of the accused persons had come with an intention to kill bua. He therefore submitted that although FIR was registered u/s 302/341 read with Section 34 IPC but it was a good case where the accused Anita should be let off on bail. It was submitted that accused Anita was a household lady having roots in the society and is having a daughter and her entire family has been implicated and were in jail. Her daughter aged 18 years namely Upasana was also implicated in this FIR. However, she was on bail being a juvenile. She had two sons aged 18 years and 8 years and her children were at such a stage of their lives that someone must be at home to look after them.

Looking into the allegations made in the complaint and the fact that Atul Sharma claimed that everything happened in his presence, but he did not interfere nor he got injured and he has practically named everyone of the family including minors to be the accused, I consider that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on her executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. However, it is directed that the applicant shall not delay the trial of the case by not appearing in the court on dates of hearing nor she shall try to influence any of the witnesses and in case she has to seek exemption from her personal appearance in the court on any date of hearing, the trial shall continue and cross examination of witness shall not be deferred because of her non appearance and her counsel shall cross examine every witness who appears in the court.