DINESH ATTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is submitted by the petitioner that learned ASJ did not exercise his jurisdiction judiciously and granted bail to the accused persons in FIR No. 163/2010 registered under Section 308/365/427/34 IPC PS Sector 23 Dwarka, contrary to the established principles of law.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for considering the present petition are that the complainant/petitioner in this case made a complaint to police that on 22nd May, 2010 when he was near Sports Complex Sector 11 Dwarka in his car No. DL 5CD 5418, a white Accent car whose last digits were 89 chased his car but he somehow managed to reach home. However, on 23rd May, 2010 at 7.00 pm while he was returning home in his car after evening walk in Sector 11 park, the same white car chased him. There were two more cars along with it, one was SX4 and another one was Wagon-R. All the persons in these cars forcibly stopped his car in front of Sector 10, Godrej Apartments, surrounded his car and started assaulting his car with lathis and dandas and then pulled him out of the car. He was given severe beatings and then forcibly pushed inside the Wagon-R car. In that car one boy viz. Malik, resident of KM apartments with a pistol and 03-04 boys were already there. They took him to jungle near Sector 19 Dwarka booster pump where 14-15 boys collected one by one and they all gave him beatings with dandas, lathis and iron rods. One of them shouted that his eyes should be bulged out with a knife. Out of the boys, who gave beatings to him, he knew three of them viz. Malik, Abhishek Sehrawat & Joginder. These three boys had also given him beatings with the intention to kill him. Injuries were caused all over his body including his head, face and other parts of the body and he was thrown in jungle near Sector 11 Dwarka Metro Station presumed to be dead. The victim was later on brought to hospital by one Anurag, in a very bad shape. Even at the time of making statement to IO he was in severe injured condition and statement was made by him in presence of his brother Ajit Singh.

(3.) I find that the learned Additional Session Judge in this case totally gave a go-bye to his duty of considering the seriousness of the offence and the manner in which offence was committed. While granting bail to an accused person, the Court has not only to keep the liberty of accused in mind, because accused is presumed innocent till proved guilty, but the Court has also to keep in mind the seriousness of the offence, prima facie evidence, the safety of society and the victim. If the Legislature wanted that every accused should remain on bail till he was not proved guilty, the Legislature would have made every offence bailable. But the very fact that Legislature had made certain offences non- bailable and certain bailable, shows that the Legislature reposed faith in Courts that the Courts shall exercise this discretion of granting bail prudently and shall give bail only in deserving cases where probability of accused being innocent was reflected from the facts. Where the accused persons were named by the complainant, as he knew them from before and the complainant had been kidnapped and beaten so brutally that his whole body was full of injuries and thereafter he was left to die, I consider granting bail to such accused persons within 15 days of the arrest shows the callous attitude of the Court below to the settled legal position, to society and to the victim.