Through: v. STATE & ORS

Delhi High Court · 04 Sep 2015 · 2015:DHC:11283
Sunil Gaur
CRL.M.C. 2752/2014; CRL.M.C. 5604/2014; CRL.M.C. 5373/2014
2015:DHC:11283
criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail, holding that unsubstantiated allegations of threat do not justify withdrawal of bail.

Full Text
Translation output
$-19, 20 & 21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + CRL.M.C. 2752/2014
JATINDER MADAN
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ORS
Through:
(ii) + CRL.M.C. 5604/2014
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ORS
Through:
(iii) + CRL.M.C. 5373/2014 Petitioner Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate
Respondents Mr.G.M. Farooqui, Additional Pubhc Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI R. S. Pandit Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate Respondents Mr.P.L. Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI R.S. Pandit with Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate for respondent No.7
Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.Respondents CRLM.Cs. 2752, 5604 & 5373 of2014
Page 1 2015:DHC:11283
Through; Mr.G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
Statewith SI R. S. Pandit withMr. Anlcur Goel, Advocate forrespondent No.7
CQRAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
0/„ 04.09.2015
In the above captioned three petitions, cancellation of pre- arrest bail granted to respondent-accused persons is sought by petitioners.
Since these petitions pertain to one FIR, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these three petitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent- accused persons are misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to them as they are extending threats to petitioner and so, the concession of pre-arrest bail extended to them, deserves to be withdrawn.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for respondent-State submit that the challan in this FIR case has been already filed and the threat perception does not stand substantiated.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR in question and the status report, I find that the threat perception as alleged by petitioner does not stand substantiated and as such, no ground to
Page 2 CRL.M.Cs. 2752, 5604 &5373 of2014 cancel the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent-accused persons is made out in these petitions. Accordingly, the above-captioned three petitions are dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 vn (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRL.M.Cs. 2752, 5604 &5373 of2014 ^
JUDGMENT