SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjeev Sharma vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi ) on 15 April, 2020

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 774/2020
SANJEEV SHARMA ….. Petitioner

Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, Advocates.
versus

STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI )
…. Respondent

Through Mr. Ashish Dutta, Ld. APP for the
state.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

ORDER

% 15.04.2020
The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
Crl. M.A.No. 5799/2020
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 774/2020 Crl.M.A No. 5798/2020

1. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance
notice, accepts notice.

2. The present petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with section 482
Cr.P.C and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner with the following prayers:

a. Quash and set aside the order dated 09.04.2020 passed by the Ld.
ASJ Smt. Vineeta Goyal in FIR No. 122/2020, P.S. Hauz Khas;

b. Restore the order of the Ld. MM Swati Gupta dated 09.04.2020 in
FIR No. 122 of 2020, P.S. Huz Khas;

c. Release the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 122/2020, P.S. Hauz
Khas.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present FIR bearing No.
122/2020 was registered on 09/04/2020 at Police Station Hauz Khas U/s
354/341/323/506/509 IPC against the petitioner for allegedly assaulting two
women resident doctors of Safdarjung Hospital after accusing them of
spreading COVID-19 in Gautam Nagar area.

4. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant who was 29 years
old and residing in the area of Gautam Nagar was working as Junior
Resident (Casualty) at Safdarjung Hospital and on 08/04/2020 at about 9:30
p.m she alongwith her sister who was also a doctor went to a fruit shop at
gate No. 4 of Gulmohar enclave to buy fruits.

5. It is alleged that a person standing at the spot started speaking about
social distancing and remarked that the doctors like them were spreading
infection in residential areas. The complainant then told the petitioner that
she knew the importance of social distancing and tried to reason out with the
petitioner but the petitioner got abusive and aggressive and threatened that
he would get a case registered against them . It is alleged that when the
complainant was about the lave the spot the petitioner assaulted them and
even touched them inappropriately.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
granted bail by the Ld. MM on 09.04.2020 at about 3 p.m which was
cancelled by the Ld. ASJ on the very same day. It is further argued by the
counsel for the petitioner that consequent to the order of cancellation of bail
the petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody on 10.04.2020 and
since them he is in J.C. It is further argued that the petitioner was only
concerned about the social distancing being maintained between people
looking into the threats of corona virus. It is further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has only protested against the
complainant and her sister for not maintaining the social distancing and on
this both the ladies became aggressive and told that they were doctors and
knew the meaning of social distancing. It is further argued that the
petitioner is an interior designer by profession and is suffering from hyper
tension and diabetes. It is further argued that all the sections except section
354 IPC are bailable. It is further argued that the no useful purpose would
be served by keeping him in J.C. and there is all likelihood of petitioner
getting infected while in J.C. It is further argued that even the Ld. MM has
allowed the petitioner to carry two medicines namely Tendia M and
Glycomet GP 2 which shows that the petitioner is suffering from diabetes.
It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that immediately
after the incident the complainant and her sister gave an interview in which
no allegations of molestation were made and the allegations of molestation
are just an after thought.

7. On the other hand the Ld. APP has vehemently opposed the bail
application contending that the allegations are grave and serious in nature
and the petitioner rather than being thankful to the doctors attacked and
molested them. He further urged that the MLC of the complainant and her
sister fully supports their version and statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C have been
recorded. He further submits that statement of fruit seller Janki has also
been recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

8. In the instant case the petitioner was admitted to bail on 09.04.2020
which was cancelled on the same day by the Ld. A.S.J. looking into the
seriousness of the allegations. As far as the investigation is concerned the
statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C have been recorded and statement of one eye
witness who was the fruit seller and was present at the spot has also been
recorded. The country is passing through a very difficult phase and the
doctors are rendering yomen service to the nation. The petitioner being an
educated man as stated by the counsel for the petitioner that he is an interior
designer by profession should have been respectful to the doctors rather than
abusing and threatening them. However, the petitioner in the instant case is
in J.C. since 10.04.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner is suffering from
diabetes which is evident from the order of the Ld. MM dated 10.04.2020
whereby the petitioner was allowed to carry two medicines as mentioned
hereinabove for his medical condition. No useful purpose would be served
by keeping the petitioner in J.C. and overcrowding Tihar Jail. Therefore,
in view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one
surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned
MM/Duty MM. The bail application stands disposed of and the Crl.M.A
No. 5798/2020 is also disposed of accordingly.

9. Dasti.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 15, 2020
Sumant

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation