BHARTI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C have been preferred by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) An FIR under Section 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioners at the instance of injured Hari Shankar. The MLC of Hari Shankar shows that he received simple blunt injuries. It is submitted by counsels for the petitioners/accused that the entire family of the petitioners has been falsely named by the complainant in his report. The complainant and his other family members had earlier also quarreled with the petitioners and a case under Section 325, 308,323 IPC was going on against the complainant and other accused persons and in that context only the entire family has been roped in and named. On the other hand, the counsel for complainant who was assisting the State counsel showed certain photographs of the complainant showing various injury marks on the body of complainant and he submitted that the residence welfare association of the area had also made a complaint against the petitioners as they were anti social elements and were acting with highhandedness.

(3.) A perusal of complaint made by the injured shows that the complainant/injured described the incident in following manner: