The grant of bail in exercise of discretionary power of the Court has to be necessarily exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has passed a judgment on 28-12-2022in the case of Iman @ Sonu vs State BAIL APPLN. 315/2022. Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the petiton.


The present application is filed under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in FIR No. 130/2019 dated 15.08.2019, under Sections 307/109/34 Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chandini Mahal. 2. The brief facts as alleged are that the applicant and the complainant are relatives living in the same house bearing no. 2126, Gali Ahata, Meel Bakhri, Turkman Gate, Delhi and the complainant is Sister-in-Law of the applicant. On the intervening night of 14.08.2019/15.08.2019 at around 3:00 a.m., a scuffle took place between the mother of the applicant and the complainant. In the meantime, the applicant also came there and asked the complainant to vacate the house. The complainant refused to do so and was then attacked by the applicant with a knife. Subsequent to the aforementioned incident, the complainant rushed to the jhuggi of her husband where he resides with his second wife and it is alleged that the applicant also followed her on her way and again attacked her with the knife, near the jhuggi of her husband. The complainant was taken to the hospital and was discharged the very next day. The mother of the applicant, namely, Nazma, was also arrested as an accused in the present FIR and was granted bail by the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on account of a property dispute. He states that the applicant is in judicial custody since 23.08.2019, and the trial is pending for more than two and a half years.

Learned APP for the State opposes the bail application and has filed a Status Report. He submits that the complainant was taken to the Lok Nayak Hospital and MLC No.113256004 was conducted, wherein the doctor after examination, had mentioned about the two incised wounds of approx. 10 cm * 2 cm below right lower jaw and another wound of size 6 cm * 2 cm on chin, which show that the injuries are grievous in nature.

He further states that the complainant along with her son resides in the same property as the applicant and his mother while her husband resides at a different place with his second wife due to which the dispute with regard to the property has arisen. He submits that such kind of persons are a threat to the society and, therefore, should not be released on bail.

Prior to filing the present application, the applicant had approached the learned Trial Court seeking regular bail. The learned Trial Court, considering the nature of the offence, and the manner in which it was committed, had declined to grant bail to the applicant.


The Court took reference from the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) for deciding the matter present before the court.

A perusal of Status Report clearly indicates that there are multiple FIRs which were registered against the applicant. FIR No. 0051/2012 and 0038/2013 were registered under Section 323/341/34 of IPC. FIR No. 0033/2014 and 0136/2018 were registered under Section 307 of IPC. Two FIRs, that is, FIR No. 0182/2017 and 0097/2018 were registered under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. FIR No. 0006/2015 was registered under Section 377/506 of IPC. Subsequently, the present FIR was registered under Section 307/109/34 of IPC. Thus, the antecedent of the applicant clearly shows that he is a habitual offender. The records do not suggest that he is not likely to commit serious offences while on bail. Another fact which also cannot be lost sight of is that the complainant resides in the same building and the applicant is admittedly disputing for the property.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations have been levied for the purpose of falsely implicating the applicant. Therefore, looking at the antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the complainant, while staying in the same building as the applicant, is also litigating in relation to the common properties, the likelihood of committing further offence while on bail cannot be ruled out.

The punishment which can be awarded for offence under Section 307, IPC, is up to 10 years. The gravity of the offence, at this stage, can be assessed from the fact that the complainant was chased after the first attack and again attacked on vital parts of the body.

Another reference was taken by the court from the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) while considering the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, and the antecedents of the applicant, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view full judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *