Pooja Bahree v. State

ORDER o/o

21.10.2011 By this petitionthe Petitionersseek anticipatorybail in case FIR No. 176/2011underSection506 IPC and Section3SC/STPOAAct registeredat PS G.T.B. Enclave. BAILAPPLNS.1191 & 1192/2011 page 1 of6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. As regardsthe maintainabilityof the presentpetitionlearnedcounsel for the Petitioner states that taking the complaint on the face value the allegationsof derogatorywords having been utteredin the public view are not made out. In view of the fact that essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC&ST POA Act) are not made out, the present anticipatorybail applicationis maintainable. Reliance is made on Sajjan Kumar Vs. The State andAnr. 2006 (2) JCC 1157. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioners are neighboursand on 14^'^ July, 2011 there was a dispute between the same partieson the issue of parking. A PGR call was made and the matterwas referred to the Delhi Government Mediation Gentre where the parties settled on 23"^ July, 2011. However,a complaintwas made to the Police on 18*^ July, 2011 on whichthoughmatterwas compromised,FIR was registeredon 27'*^ July on a fresh improvedthe statementofthe complainantdated 26"^ July, 2011. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner the complainant misbehaved with the mother of the Petitioners. While coming out of the Mediation Gentre the complainant threatened the Petitioners and their family BAILAPPLNS. 1191 & 1192/2011 membersthat they would soon have the taste oftheir connections. On this threat by the complainant,the mother of the Petitionerssuffered a heart attack on the 23''' July, 2011 and she died at 11.00 AM on the 24^^ July, 2011. It is contended that the above-mentionedFIR has been registered malafidelyin orderto harassand humiliatethe Petitionersand theirdeceased mother who died before the FIR was registered. Further, the basic ingredientsof Section3(l)(x)ofthe SC&ST POA Act are not made out in the complaintlodged by the complainanton the IS^'' July, 2011 with the Police. However, the Police to help out the complainant malafidelyhas takenthe statementof somepersonsto showthat it was in publicview. Learned APP on the other hand contends that after recording the statementof the complainant,the statementof one independentwitnesswas recorded who stated that she was present at the time when abusive words were used. Hence no case for anticipatory bail is made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It may be noted that betweenthe partiestherewas adisputewithregardto the parkingon the 14^^ July, 2011 which matter was referredto the Delhi GovernmentMediation Centre. The parties appeared before the Delhi Government Mediation Centre and the matter was settled on the 23'''' July, 2011. However, the )o complainant on 18^'' July, 2011 gave a written complaint to the Commissionerof Police stating about the dispute on the 14^^ July with regardto the parkingand aboutthe allegedincidenton 16'^ July, 2011 when she had goneto lookafterthe workprogressinher flat. It is allegedshe saw Seema Bahi-ee throwing something in their courtyard. On seeing it was found to be the excreta of a dog. On the complainant expressing her displeasureon it all the three family members came down to her courtyard and startedbeatingher with fists blows and the Petitionersstatedthat "Only excretaof the dog has been put, what is the problemfor you in cleaningit, you throw it out, this is your work, wherefiromChure Chamarhave come, they do not loiow". Thereafter,SeemaBahreeand her sonthreatenedher. A perusal of the complaintdated le^*" July, 2011 received at P.S. G.T.B.Enclaveon 18'^ July, 2011 showsthatthe allegedincidenttookplace when the complainant had gone to inspect her flat and allegedly the Petitioners and their mother came to their courtyard. There is no mention of any third personbesidesthe Petitioner,theirmotherand the complainantat the said time. Thus, on the perusal of this complaintwhich is the first in time, no publicview is made out. Thereafter,the statementofcomplainant was recordedonthe 26"" July, 2011 by the Police. In the said statementalso she reiteratedall this, however, she further stated that this incident was witnessedby Smt. Santoshwhichfact was not statedin the complaintdated 18^'' July, 2011. Furtherit is not possiblethat both the Petitionerswould have simultaneouslystatedthesewordstogetheras allegedin the complaint. This Court while issuingnotice on the 25'^ August, 2011 had noted the contentionthatspotinspectionwas carriedor not. Nothingin this regard has been mentionedin the status report. Though the learned APP orally statedthat spot inspectionwas carriedout howeverit is not clear from the status reportwhetherthe courtyardwas insidethe house or outsideto infer about the public view. In view of the fact that in the initial complaintno case of public view was made out and thus Section 3(l)(x) of the SC&ST POA Act was not attracted,the anticipatorybail applicationis maintainable. In view of the facts of the case and also the fact that the dispute of parking was settled betweenthe partieson the 23''' July, 2011 whereinthe complainantdid not raise any such issue, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. It is thereforedirectedthat in the eventof arrestthe Petitionerswill be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. BAILAPPLNS.1191 &1192/2011 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the.Arresting Officer/ SHO. Both the petitions are disposed of. Order dasti. I MUKTAGUPTA,J OCTOBER 21, 2011 'ga'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAILAPPLN. 1191/2011 VIKRAMBHAREE Petitioner Through Mr. RahulRaj Malik,Adv. versus STATE Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ACP Ved Parkash Surya PS Seemapuri, Inspector Devendra Kumar PS GTB Enclave. + BAILAPPLN. 1192/2011 POOJABAHREE Petitioner Through Mr. RahulRaj Malik,Adv. versus STATE Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ACP Ved Parkash Surya PS Seemapuri, Inspector Devendra Kumar PS GTB Enclave. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA