HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application has been made for bail by the accused, who is
involved in offence under Section 307 IPC. The accused was taking drinks on
roof of the third floor, when three four children came to play there. Accused
felt disturbed by the noise and play and told them to run away. The children
went away from the third floor. However, in the meantime, there was power
shedding and the children again came on the roof. This time accused rushed to
beat them. While other children were able to run away, accused got hold of one
child Chhotu. On hearing from other children that Chhotu has been caught,
mother of Chhotu rushed to the roof to prevent beating of her child. However,
when she reached the roof, she saw that accused was holding collar of the child
in one hand and a foot of the child in other hand and was hanging down the roof
towards the road. On seeing this, mother told him that the child would fall to
the road and he should not do so. Instead of bringing the child back on the
roof, accused dropped the child on the road down. The child fell on the road
and got injured seriously and became unconscious. He was immediately removed to
Holly Family Hospital.
(2.) The counsel for the accused submitted that it was merely an
accident and the accused has no role into it. Since the child had recovered
from injuries, there was no use of keeping the accused in jail.
(3.) I consider that looking into the heinousness of the crime and
the brutal and inhuman manner in which the accused acted vis-a-vis a small
child, aged 11 years, only because the child disturbed him in his drinking,
accused is not entitled for bail. The bail application is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.