GAURAV BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Bail Application No. 306/2016, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.638/2015 registered at PS Greater Kailash under Section 307 IPC and in CRL.M.C.2624/2016 the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th January, 2016 declaring him a proclaimed offender.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on the allegations in the complaint it is apparent that the injured Nitin misbehaved with the fiance of the petitioner due to which quarrel took place between the petitioner and Nitin. Both petitioner and Nitin received injuries, however FIR was immediately written on the complaint of Konark Verma for injuries to Nitin and the complaint of the petitioner was not even accepted. Even on the complaint of the fiance of the petitioner, FIR was registered after registering the above-noted FIR. The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application before the learned ASJ. Proceedings for declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender were taken in a haste after anticipatory bail was granted to Nitin in FIR No. 388/2015 under Sections 354A/509/323/354/34 IPC of which no notice was given to the complainant therein. The connivance of the investigating officer with Nitin is manifest as first his FIR was registered and after he was granted anticipatory bail on the pretext of a settlement though no settlement was acted upon, the matter was proceeded against the petitioner and on the complaint of the petitioner, no FIR was registered. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender after serving notices at the incorrect address thus causing hindrance in the grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is not malafide. The proceedings were initiated because despite service of notice at his residence, the petitioner was not available and since he has been declared a proclaimed offender, his application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.