RAM SINGH BALIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant of FIR No.548/2013, u/s 307/308/34/120-B of IPC, P.S. Malviya Nagar wherein prayer is made for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2014.

(2.) The allegations against the respondent No.2/accused are that on 24.10.2013 he had mercilessly beaten the petitioner/complainant along with other accused persons whereupon the petitioner was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR. Thereupon, DD No.107B dated 24.10.2013, P.S. Malviya Nagar was recorded which was handed over to SI Manish. Thereupon, SI Manish along with Constable Aashish had gone to the spot where they came to know that the injured had been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Constable Aashish was left at the spot and SI Manish left for the Trauma Centre where present petitioner was found admitted. He obtained the MLC of the injured/petitioner and the injured/petitioner was declared fit for making statement. However, the injured did not make any statement and considering the circumstances, FIR under Section 308/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar on 25.10.2013. The two co-accused persons, namely, Rajbir and Arshad were arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR on 01.11.2013. The other two co-accused persons i.e. the respondent No.2 and one Pankaj @ Chiku were arrested on 04.11.2013. It is stated that the petitioner could not make the statement earlier as he was under heavy sedatives. According to the petitioner, the police had met him for the first time at his residence on 25.10.2013 and recorded his statement. Even at that time, the petitioner was under the influence of heavy sedatives. After the discharge from AIIMS hospital, he got admitted in Sita Ram Bhartia Hospital on 30.10.2013 and had to undergo two surgeries on 01.11.2013 and 06.11.2013 and remained admitted there upto 08.11.2013. It is stated that the supplementary statement of the petitioner was recorded on 18.11.2013 and on the basis of medical evidence and CT records collected by the police, Section 307 IPC was also added in the FIR.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 has obtained the bail order from this court by concealing material facts. It is contended that in the bail application, the alleged offence has been mentioned as under Section 308/34 IPC whereas the investigation was being conducted under Section 307/120B/34 IPC and the said fact was within the knowledge of respondent No.2 and same has been concealed from this Court deliberately. It is also submitted that in the bail application, it has been mentioned that co-accused Dinesh Kundra was granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.11.2013 whereas bail granted to him was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 29.11.2013. It is further submitted that while arguing the bail application it was submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that there is no involvement of respondent No.2/accused in any other case. Even the said fact was wrongly mentioned and the respondent No.2 is involved in three other criminal cases. It is submitted that as there is concealment of material facts before this Court, as such bail granted to the respondent No.2 be cancelled.