RAM Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.165 of 2018 under Sections 326/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, P.S. Inderpuri.

(2.) Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had a dispute with one Rohit. On the day of the incident, it is alleged that, the complainant was standing outside his factory. Co-accused Mukesh along with his sons Rohit and Vinay came and thereafter started assaulting him. Subsequently it is alleged that petitioner and another accused came on the spot and also assaulted him. It is alleged that the petitioner gave a glass bottle to the main accused Rohit who broke it and hit the bottle on the complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that even the main accused Rohit had applied for anticipatory bail and contended that he was not present at the spot. He further submits that even petitioner was not present on the spot but was somewhere else.