BAIL APPLN.--2561/2017. Case: BILLU @ DINESH TYAGI Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberBAIL APPLN.--2561/2017
CitationNA
Judgement DateMay 20, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~6 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20.05.2019 + BAIL APPLN. 2554/2017

RAHUL TYAGI ..... Petitioner versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

+ BAIL APPLN. 2561/2017

BILLU @ DINESH TYAGI ..... Petitioner versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, and Mr. Karan Sharma,

Advs.

For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with

SI Sri Bhagwan

Mr. S.C. Buttan, Adv. for complainant

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 610/2017, Police Station, Burari under Sections 323/308/34.

  2. As per the subject FIR, it is contended that there is a family

    BAIL APPLN.2554/2017 & 2561/2017 Page 1

    dispute between the family of the complainant as well as the family of the petitioners. On the date of the alleged incident, it is alleged the complainant Rajender Tyagi was walking from the disputed site to his house at about 8-8.15 in the night; he found that Anuj, Vikas Sintoo alias Rohit were sitting in the vehicle of Anuj and drinking. The vehicle was parked in a fashion so as to obstruct the ingress to the disputed site. Anuj was asked to remove the vehicle and not to drink on which it is alleged that they started abusing them and came out the car with sticks and rods and assaulted the complainant and his son, on account of which his son sustained serious injury.

  3. It is further contended that on the happening of the incident when Rakesh raised his voice and made noise, his nephew’s son Rahul came to the spot and also the brother of Rakesh i.e. Billu’s son and Rahul and one Sardarji owner of Bharat Motors to the site.

  4. It is contended that the said persons who joined later assaulted them on account of which Rahul and Sunny sustained injuries.

  5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the the petitioners are alleged to have joined the incident after the accused had, allegedly, already assaulted the victims with rods.

  6. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by Rahul and Sunny

    BAIL APPLN.2554/2017 & 2561/2017 Page 2

    who were allegedly assaulted after the petitioners joined, are grievous in nature. Learned counsel submits that no MLC of Sunny was conducted and Rahul, who was examined, had only suffered simple injuries.

  7. Petitioners were granted interim protection by order

    11.01.2018 subject to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT