BAIL APPLN./1702/2017 of AJAY RAWAT Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1702/2017AJAY RAWAT..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.R.K.Sahni with Mr.PrateekMehta, Advs.AJAY RAWAT..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.R.K.Sahni with Mr.PrateekMehta, Advs.

versus

STATE

..... RespondentThrough:Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, APP.SI Anand Pratap, P.S.Madhu Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%20.09.2017

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.295/2016 dated13.05.2016 (P.S. Madhu Vihar) which was instituted initially for offencesunder Sections 323, 341 and 34 of the IPC. Later, with the death of thedeceased, Section 304 of the IPC was added.

The averments in the FIR reveals that the deceased had come late tohis home and was found by his wife to be drunk. Since there was an injuryon the face of the deceased, the wife enquired from him the reason for suchan injury but no answer was given by the deceased. Later in the night whenthe deceased complained of pain in his stomach, he was taken to hospital.Before he was taken to hospital, the deceased is said to have disclosedbefore his wife that he had consumed alcohol along with the petitioner andone Sachin in the evening in the children’s park. Later, while the deceased

was leaving the place, the petitioner and Sachin assaulted him by means offists, slaps and kicks in stomach.

The deceased was taken to local clinic on 12.05.2016 by his wife,where it was advised that the deceased be taken to Government hospital.The deceased was thereafter brought to LBS Hospital and after remaining inICU for some days, the deceased died.

The post mortem report reveals that there are as many as 21 injurieson the person of the deceased. However, on closer scrutiny of the nature ofinjuries, it is found that injury Nos.1 to 18 are injuries which have partiallyhealed and they are in the nature of scabs/abrasions but not on the stomach.From the nature of the injuries Nos.1 to 18, it can safely be stated, it hasbeen argued on behalf of the petitioner, that those injuries were not relatedto the assault perpetrated on the deceased by the petitioner and another. Itfurther appears, as has been argued, that the Laprotomy and Ileostomy wasconducted on the body of the deceased which perhaps could have caused themixing of mucopurulent discharge mixed with the blood present in thecavity. The post mortem report clearly reveals that about 1 litre ofmucopurulent discharge was found to be mixed with blood present in thecavity.

It has been argued that because of the surgical intervention, thedeceased has died and the death has got nothing to do with the assaultperpetrated on him by the accused persons including the petitioner. Had theaccused persons including the petitioner intended to kill the deceased, thedeceased would have suffered other ante mortem injuries on the body. Thatthe deceased did not talk about it to his wife in the evening when he reachedhome is also good enough evidence to conclude that if at all there was

scuffle between the petitioner and another with the deceased, it was of aminor nature and that there was no intention to kill him.

The petitioner is said to be in custody since 14.05.2016.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts namely the nature ofaccusation and the period of custody of the petitioner, this Court is inclinedto grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing abond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court.

Needless to state that the petitioner shall participate in the trial and incase the petitioner absents himself from the trial proceedings on twoconsecutive occasions without necessary permission from the Trial Court, itwould be open for the State to take steps for cancellation of his bail.

The application is disposed of.

Dasti.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J