X Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused (Respondent No.2 ) in FIR No. 374/2015 registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin under Sections 452/308/354/323 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ("ASJ"), Saket, District West by an order dated 5th June 2015.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the Complainant who happens to be a practising lawyer residing in a house in Jangpura Extension for the past two years. On her complaint, an FIR was registered on 28th May 2015 wherein she stated that on 27th May 2015 at around 8.30 to 9 pm while she was listening to music on earphones and surfing internet on her mobile while lying on bed, "one identified boy entered my premises" and hit her on the head several times with a rod, which he was carrying. She became unconscious briefly. When she regained consciousness, she could "hear sound of hitting" and even her phone battery had been damaged. The accused had torn her shirt. As he was coming closer to her, she shouted for help. After the landlord residing on the third floor came out and shouted, the accused fled from the spot. The Petitioner stated in her complaint that "I can identify the person if I see him".

(3.) AS it transpired, the Respondent No.2/accused was arrested by the police at around 9 pm on 28th May 2015. It is now seen that the accused resides in Church Road which is different from Church Lane where the building in which the Petitioner resides/is located. This is significant because in his application for regular bail before the learned ASJ Respondent No. 2 inter alia stated in para 3 that he is the "owner of the aforesaid house" at Church Lane. Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 candidly stated that the aforesaid statement was admittedly erroneous, as the house where the Petitioner resides is owned by his aunt and Respondent No.2 claims to frequently visit his aunt. In other words, the aunt of the accused is the landlady of the Petitioner. The serious issue that arises is that impugned order of the learned ASJ erroneously records that "as per the medical report no head injury was found present on the body of the victim." The Court has been shown the MLC of the Petitioner, prepared at AIIMS, which notes the following four injuries on her person on 28th May 2015: