BAIL APPLN./4259/2024 of ASHRAF ALI @ ASHU Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024

ASHRAF ALI @ ASHU

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rivyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Pratiksha Triptahi & Mr. Amit Sangwan, Advs. Ms. Pratiksha Triptahi & Mr. Amit Sangwan, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Through:

.....Respondent

Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State SI Saurabh, PS- Malviya Nagar Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. for complainant (through VC)

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R R18.12.2024

1)The present application is filed seeking regular bail in FIR

No. 612/2023 dated 21.11.2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar for offences under Sections 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The applicant has been charge sheeted in the present case under Sections 307/354/325/341/506/34 of the IPC.

2)This Court vide orders dated 23.08.2024, and 30.08.2024 has already admitted accused Arshad Ali and Zaid respectively on bail. Both the accused persons were taken into custody after they surrendered on 18.04.2024.

3)The present FIR was registered on complaint made by the injured Arif, who is the half-brother of the applicant. It is

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024

Page 1 of 7

alleged that PCR call was received on 20.11.2023 by female who informed that 3-4 men had beaten her brother. It is alleged that when the police officers reached the spot, they found that the injured had been shifted to the hospital. At the hospital, the injured stated that he could not give the statement as he was in lot of pain.

4)It is alleged that the injured Arif in his statement on 24.11.2023 stated that he had bought property from the applicant who was not handing over the documents for the same. He stated that there was friction between the parties due to water supply as well. He alleged that on 19.11.2023, quarrel took place between the parties where he had sustained blow to his head by danda and his brother Asif had fractured his hand while trying to intervene.

5)He further stated that on 20.11.2023, when his sisters were present at the office, an acquaintance of the complainant told him that he will talk to Arshad Ali and the applicant to compromise the matter. He stated that thereafter, the accused persons, including the applicant, came there and Arshad Ali hit him on his head with an iron chair. He alleged that Arshad Ali also threatened that he would kill him. He stated that the applicant also molested one of his sisters when she tried to intervene. He alleged that the accused persons chased them with sticks and rods. He alleged that the accused persons were carrying knife and screwdriver and tried to kill the injured complainant.

6)The FIR records that the injury was simple in nature and the same was inflicted from wooden rod by known person– ‘Harshad Ali’

7)During course of investigation, subsequent opinion in regard to the injuries sustained by the victims was obtained by

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024 Page 2 of 7

the IO. The injury suffered by the complainant were opined to be simple in nature while the injuries sustained by the injured Asif were determined to be serious in nature.

8)The applicant was arrested on 25.09.2024.9)The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the present FIR was lodged due to property feud between two factions of family who are half-blood siblings. He submits that the applicant and the other accused persons in the present FIR were born out of the first marriage of the applicant’s father while four children, including the complainant, were born out of the second marriage of the applicant’s father.

10)He submits that the applicant’s widowed sister, namely, Uzma, had purchased flat in the same building from where the complainant was running his Real Estate business. He submits that the complainant had cut-off the water supply of Uzma’s house whereafter when Uzma along with their sister Asma went to the shop of the complainant to request him to open the lock, the complainant and his brother Arif hurled expletives at them and outraged their modesty. He submits that Uzma also sustained injuries during the incident.

11)He submits that on the next day, the complainant along with his siblings and his henchmen attacked the applicant and his family members with wooden and iron rods. He submits that the applicant and his family members suffered serious injuries in the altercation. He submits that the incident was recorded on CCTV footage.

12)He submits that cross-FIR was also registered at the instance of the applicant’s sister regarding the incident.

13)He submits that the injury suffered by complainant Arif

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024

Page 3 of 7

was found to be simple in nature in the MLC conducted at Max Hospital right after the incident. He submits that four days after the incident, the complainant Arif recorded his statement before the IO, due to which Section 308 of the IPC was added, which was later converted to Section 307 of the IPC.

14)He submits that co-accused Asma, Uzma and Saba alias Alina have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submits that the co-accused Arshad Ali and Zaid have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court. He also submits that the co-accused Zeeshan Khan, Rubina Begum and Sameer have also been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court.

15)He submits that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly molested the sister of the complainant. He prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

16)Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submits that the allegations against the applicant are specific and serious in nature. He submits that the applicant is also threatening the complainant. He consequently prays that the applicant not be enlarged on regular bail.

17)I have heard the counsels and perused the record. 18)It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024 Page 4 of 7

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened; etc.

19)It is not disputed that the parties involved in the present case are related to each other. The incident happened on 19.11.2023 and 20.11.2023, and cross FIRs were registered. An FIR was also registered at the instance of the applicant and his family members being FIR No. 613/2023, under Sections 323/354/341/509/34 of the IPC.

20)The women in the family were also named as accused persons in the FIRs registered at the instance of both the parties. Other family members of the applicant, who were also co-accused in the present FIR, namely, Sameer and Zeeshan Khan were granted bail by the learned Trial Court. This Court vide orders dated 23.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 have respectively enlarged co-accused Arshad Ali and Zaid on bail.

21)It is undisputed that the incident was captured in the CCTV, where large number of accused, including some of the women were seen inflicting blows on the victim and other family members of the victim. As noted above, the family of the victim and family of the applicant are related to each other being siblings from two wives. It is the case of the prosecution that due to long festering family dispute, an altercation took place between the parties where the victim Arif sustained certain injuries.

22)It is relevant to note that the present case seems to relate to two incidents that happened on 19.11.2023 and 20.11.2023 respectively. The role ascribed to the applicant is that during the altercation that took place on 20.11.2023, the applicant molested the sister of the complainant.

23)All accused persons have been charged for the same

BAIL APPLN. 4259/2024 Page 5 of 7

offence by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant had initially absconded but thereafter surrendered on his own and was taken into custody on 25.09.2024 and is in custody since then. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case and charges have also been framed. The trial is likely to take considerable period of time to conclude. It is not denied that the applicant has deep roots in the society and has clean antecedents. 24)During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant expressed an apprehension that the applicant, if released on bail, would threaten the complainant and his family members. Certain WhatsApp messages have also been relied upon to contend that the applicant is threatening the complainant of dire consequences. Such apprehensions can however be allayed by putting appropriate conditions.

25)Without commenting further on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions:

a)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

b)The applicant shall not stay within 5 Kms of radius where the complainant resides; where the complainant resides;

c)The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial country without the permission of the learned Trial

Court;

d)The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;

e)The applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; f)The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.

26)In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 27)It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 28)The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

DECEMBER 18, 2024

AMIT MAHAJAN, J