New Delhi, Aug 11 A Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of being part of a violent assault on owners of a club and their associates in Hauz Khas over a dispute on deploying bouncers, saying that the allegations were serious and witnesses could be influenced if he was released.
Additional Sessions Judge Richa Parihar dismissed the bail plea of accused Anuj, noting that some co-accused were still absconding and key witnesses were yet to be examined.
In an order dated August 10, the court said, “The allegations against the accused are serious in nature. As per the case of prosecution, applicant Anuj along with other co-accused persons is involved in causing serious injuries to complainant and victims Anil, Akash, Akash Duggal and Prem”.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of February 1 when Anuj, Monu and their associates allegedly confronted the complainant and asked him to remove bouncers deployed outside the club.
When the complainant and his friends proceeded towards a police booth to lodge a complaint, the accused allegedly intercepted them again and later attacked them near Jagannath Mandir in Hauz Khas.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and their associates assaulted the complainant and his friends with choppers, sticks, screwdrivers and other sharp weapons, causing serious injuries to four persons.
The court noted that one victim suffered a grievous and life-threatening abdominal injury and remained hospitalised for more than 15 days, while another sustained multiple grievous injuries, including stab and incised wounds.
“As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries caused to the victim Akash are grievous and life-threatening in nature as he had sustained an 8 cm incised wound over the right upper abdomen and he had to remain hospitalised for more than 15 days,” the judge said.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution described Anuj as the main mastermind of the offence and said his active participation was visible in CCTV footage collected during the investigation.
It also alleged that the victims and their family members were receiving threats from the accused and his associates.
The court said that the accused was specifically named in the complaint and that a stick allegedly used in the assault had been recovered at his instance.
“In the present case, charge is yet to be framed and the victim and other witnesses are yet to be examined. Some of the co-accused persons are yet to be arrested.
"Considering the threat perception of the complainant, if the accused/ applicant is released on bail at this stage, tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant cannot be ruled out,” the judge said.
Noting the gravity of the allegations, the stage of the trial and the possibility of witness intimidation, the court held that it was not a fit case for grant of bail.
