PRIYANKA ARORA vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI
Judgmentdeliveredon:12.02.2024
+ CRL.A. 132/2024PRIYANKA ARORA…..AppellantThrough:Mr.MohitMathur, Sr.Advocate withMr.MohitLakra andMs.Aditya Gauri,
Advocates.
versusSTATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
.Respondent
Through:Mr.AjayVikramSingh,APP for StatewithACP NirajtokasandSIDhamSingh, PS Hauz Khas.
Mr.SiddharthLuthra, Sr.AdvocatewithMr.Neeraj Gupta, Ms.TajinderKaur, Ms.Deepshikha Gupta,
Mr.Anmol, Ms.Anshula Verma andMr.N.Tripathi, Advocatesalongwithcomplainantinperson.
+ CRL.A. 131/2024KAPIL DEV ARORA…..AppellantThrough:Mr.MohitMathur, Sr.Advocate withMr.MohitLakra andMs.Aditya Gauri,
AdvocatesversusSTATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
..Respondent
Through:Mr.AjayVikramSingh,APP for StatewithACP NirajtokasandSIDhamSingh, PS Hauz Khas.
Mr.SiddharthLuthra, Sr.AdvocatewithMr.Neeraj Gupta, Ms.TajinderKaur, Ms.Deepshikha Gupta,
Mr.Anmol, Ms.Anshula Verma andMr.N.Tripathi, Advocatesalongwithcomplainantinperson.
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page1of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTAJ U D G M E N TANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
1.CRL.A.132/2024andCRL.A.131/2024have beenpreferredonbehalfof the appellantsunder Section14A(2) of the ScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referredtoasthe Act) readwithSection482of Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) challengingthe order dated28.12.2023therebyremandingtheappellantstojudicialcustodyalongwithorder dated05.01.2024passedbythe learnedASJinFIR No.489/2023dated14.11.2023under Section506/509/34IPC registeredatPS:Hauz Khas, NewDelhi,wherebythe bailapplicationsunder Section439Cr.P.C. waswithdrawnwithlibertytomove
the appropriate forumagainstorder dated29.12.2023decliningthe firstbailapplicationpreferredonbehalf of the appellants. Section3(2)(va) of theScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act,1989isstatedtohavebeeninvokedbythe prosecutionsubsequenttoregistrationof FIR.
2.Inbrief, asper the case of the prosecution, a complaintwasreceivedfromMs.Con26.10.2023,allegingthaton25.10.2023at02:00PM,
Priyanka Arora(appellantinCRL.A.132/2024) andKapilDevArora(appellantinCRL.A.131/2024) alongwithHarishChander Pahwa followedher anddrovethe car towardsher.Further,a complaintlodgedbyher earlieragainstPriyanka Arora, KapilDevArora andHarishChander Pahwa hadculminatedinregistrationof FIR No.460/2022atPS:Hauz Khas, NewDelhi
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page2of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
undervariousSectionsofIndianPenalCode, 1860(IPC) andScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act,1989. Shefurther statedthatinher earliertwocomplaints, itwasalsopointedoutthataforesaidaccused/appellantsfollowedherregularlyandtriedtohither byacar. Assuch, sheapprehendeddanger toher life fromtheaforesaidaccused/appellantswhothreatenedher and used vulgar languageearlier.
3.Itisfurther the case of the prosecutionthataninquirywasconductedandCCTVfootage nearbythe place of incidentwasexamined,onthebasisof which,a vehicle withregistrationNo.DL4CY8230wasobservedonPBlock, SouthExtn.II,NewDelhi. The saidvehicle haltedbriefly, executedasharp turn and thereafter left. Further, the saidvehicle wasfoundto be inthename of Neena Arora c/o Kapil Dev Arora.
4.Asper the statusreportfiledbythe prosecution,complainant, duringinvestigationstatedthatearlier FIR No.460/2022wasregisteredunder
Section 420 IPC whereinboththe parties are engaged inmediation. The saidcase pertainstodispute of sale of propertywhereinthe appellantsallegedlyrefusedthe executionof sale deedinfavour of the complainant.
Complainantduringinvestigationalsoallegedthaton25.10.2023, she wasverballyabusedbythe appellantsandtheyalsoshowedhermiddle fingerandthreatenedher bysayingKutiyacase wapasle-le nahitoiskaanzamachanahihoga”,andattemptedtohitherbythevehicle.Statement ofthecomplainantwas alsorecorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
FIRwasaccordinglyregisteredon14.11.2023underSection506/509/34IPC,PS:Hauz Khas,NewDelhi. Section3(2)(va)ofthe Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (PreventionofAtrocities) Act, 1989was invokedbytheprosecutionon04.12.2023.
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page3of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
5.Learnedcounselfor the appellantschallengesthe order decliningthebailtoboththe appellantsandsubmitsthatappellantPriyankaArora agedabout43yearsisrunninganNGOandstayingwithherparents.The presentcase isstatedtohavebeenlodgedonthe nextdayof the allegedincidentinorder topressurize the appellantstosettle the civildispute relatingtosale ofproperty.
6.ItisfurthersubmittedthatAgreementtoSelldated01.10.2020wasexecutedbyher father KapilDevArora(appellantinCRL.A.131/2024)
alongwithHarishChander Pahwa, whereinshe isone of the witnessesanda
CivilSuitisalsopendingbefore the competentcourtof law. Itisalsopointedoutthatcharge-sheetinFIRNo.460/2022waspresentedagainsttheappellantsonlyunder section420/34IPCwithoutarrestandwere placedinColumnNo.12of the charge-sheetinrespectof offencesunder ScheduledCastes andScheduledTribes (PreventionofAtrocities) Act, 1989.Theappellants are statedto have beensummonedintheaforesaidcaseafter wronglyinvokingthe provisions ofScheduledCastes andScheduledTribes (PreventionofAtrocities) Act, 1989andmatter was referredformediationwiththe consentofthe complainant, sincethe genesis ofthe litigationiscivildispute withrespecttosale ofproperty. The appellantsare statedtobe onbailinthe saidcase.Itis furthercontendedthatboththeappellants hadalreadyjoinedtheinvestigationevenpriortoarrestandare incustodysince28.12.2023. The
provisionsofScheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (PreventionofAtrocities)
Act, 1989are stated tohave beenmisusedtoensure thatappellantsaredeprivedofthebenefitofbail. Itis alsosubmitted thatthe CCTVfootage collectedduringthe course ofinvestigation, does notcorroboratethe allegations exceptthatthe aforesaidcarpassedatthe relevanttime,while the complainant appears
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page4of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
tobe passing. Relianceis furtherplaced uponArnesh Kumar v.State ofBihar
andAnother, CriminalAppeal No.1277/2014decidedbyHonble Supreme
Court of India on02.07.2014.
7.Ontheother hand, ShriSiddharthLuthra,Senior Advocatevehementlyopposesthe appeals. He submitsthatthe allegationsleveledbythecomplainantarecorroboratedbythe CCTVfootageandthe appellantshave beenstalkingandharassingthe complainant. Itiscontendedthatsinceanattempthadbeen made to hit the complainanteveninthe past, theydonotdeserve thebenefitof bail. Itispointedoutthatboththe appellantsandthe
complainantstaywithinthe same areaandthe possibilityof influencingorthreateningthe complainantcannotbe ruledout. The car isstatedtohavebeendrivenbyappellantPriyanka Arora attherelevanttime while the otheroccupants were seated.
8.I have given considered thoughttothe contentions raised.
Admittedly, the relationsbetweenboththepartieswentsourafter thedispute arosewithregardtosale of property. AnFIR No.460/2022, PS:
Hauz Khas, NewDelhiwasregisteredearlier under Section420/34IPCwithoutarresting the appellants, considering that the genesis of the complaintrelatedtodispute regardingsale of property. Appellantsare statedtohave
beenplacedinColumnNo.12inthe finalreportbutalsostandsummoned
underSection3(1)(r)(s), Section3(1)(w)(ii)&Section3(2)(va)of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989.
9.Onthe face of record, asper statusreport, improvementshave beenmade bythe complainantduringthe course ofinvestigationasintheinitialFIR, allegedthreatsextendedwere notspecified. Itmayalsobe observedthatonthe allegeddate andtime of the incidenti.e.25.10.2023, appellants
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page5of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
couldnothave contemplatedthatthe complainantwouldalsobe passingthestreetwhileapproachingfromopposite direction. Further, nothingsubstantive canbe concludedonthe basisof CCTVfootage, relieduponbythe prosecutionandeventhe learnedASJobservedthatasper CCTVfootage, onlythe brakesappear tohavebeenappliedinthe Balenocar
belongingtothe appellantsbutnothingfurther isvisible. The observationsmade bythe learnedASJthatthe appellantsafter firstFIR, againcommittedthe similar offence on25.10.2023, canbe determinedonlyafter the evidenceisledbythe prosecutionandthe same cannotbe primafacie concludedbytheCCTVfootage. The genesisof the dispute isonaccountof civildispute
relatingtosale of property. The appellantsare nomore requiredforanycustodial investigation.
10.Inthe factsandcircumstances, order passedbythe learnedASJdecliningthe bailtothe appellantsdoesnotappear tobe oncogentgroundsandisaccordinglysetaside. Boththeappellantsare admittedtobailonfurnishinga personalbondinthe sumof Rs.25,000/-(RupeesTwentyFive
ThousandOnly) each withone suretyin the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe learnedSpecialCourt/TrialCourt/DutyMM concerned, subjecttofollowing conditions:
(i)Appellantsshallnotinduce,threator influencethe witnessesinanymanner;
(ii)Appellantsshallnotindulge inanysimilar conductor offenceduringthe pendencyof trial;
(iii)Appellant shall join the investigation as and when required.
11.Since investigationisstillpending, noobservationsare made quaorder dated28.12.2023wherebythe appellantswere remandedtojudicial
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page6of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA
custody,invokingthe provisionsof ScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989. Libertyisgrantedtotheappellantstochallenge the same, if soadvised, afterconclusionof investigationandfilingof charge-sheet.
Boththe appealsareaccordinglyallowedonthe pointof bail.Pendingapplications, if any, also standdisposed of.
Acopyof thisorder be forwardedtoJailSuperintendentaswellaslearnedTrialCourtfor information. Also, a copybe providedtotheappellants under the signaturesof Court Master.
(ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARYU 12, 2024/sd
CRL.A. 132/2024 & 131/2024Page7of7
(Document certified by DINESH CHANDRA