Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 205/2013
RAVI SHANKER Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.L. Soni, Advocate
BAIL APPLN. 205/2013
RAVI SHANKER Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.L. Soni, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. MukeshGupta, Additional Public Prosecutorfor respondent-
State with ASI Sunder Singh Mr.S.K. Walia, Advocate with respondent No.2
Through: Mr. MukeshGupta, Additional Public Prosecutorfor respondent-
State with ASI Sunder Singh Mr.S.K. Walia, Advocate with respondent No.2
BAIL APPLN. 665/2013
DEVENDER KUMAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.L. Soni, Advocate
DEVENDER KUMAR & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.L. Soni, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Sunder Singh Mr.S.K. Walia, Advocate with respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Sunder Singh Mr.S.K. Walia, Advocate with respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
19.08.2013 In above captioned two applications, impugned order cancelling bail ofpetitioner is assailed.
Bail Appln. No.205 & 665 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:8185
Petitioners are the husband and sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother- in-Law (Nandoi) ofcomplainant/first-informant ofFIRNo.89/2011 under
Sections 498-A/406/34 ofZPC registered at P.S. Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, who were granted pre-arrest bail by the sessions court on the basis of settlement agreement of 9"" December, 2011 (Annexure P-4). The aforesaid settlement agreement (Annexure P-4) reached through the
Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was not honoured and therefore, pre-arrest bail of petitioner-i?<3v/ Shanker was cancelled by the sessions court vide order of lO"' January, 2013 and by subsequent order of 19'*' March, 2013 pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners-DevewJer
Kumar and Priya also stands cancelled.
Upon hearing, it transpires that petitioners are putting blame on complainant/first-informant for default in compliance with the settlement agreement {Annexure P-4) whereas the complainant side is blaming petitioners for it. In such a situation, it is deemed appropriate that petitioners' pre-arrest bail application is considered on merits as it is not possible to determine inthis proceeding that who is at fault in not acting upon aforesaid Settlement Agreement {Annexure P-4).
Accordingly, impugned order cancelling ofpetitioner's bail aswell as order granting bail to petitioner is set aside. However, upon petitioners filing fresh applications to seek pre-arrest bail before the sessions court within one week, no coercive steps be taken against them till the said applications are considered bythe concerned court.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the charge-sheet has been filed wherein petitioners-DevenJer Kumar and
Priyahave been shown inColumn No.12, which indicates that there is no
BailAppln. No.205 &665 of2013 Page2 > sufficient material against them.
In view thereof, impugned order qua petitioners-Devewc?er Kumar and Priya is quashed with liberty to petitioners-Devew^/er Kumar and
Priya to have recourse to law iftrial court chooses to summon them.
These two petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 19,2013 s BailAppln. No.205 &665 of2013 Page 3
19.08.2013 In above captioned two applications, impugned order cancelling bail ofpetitioner is assailed.
Bail Appln. No.205 & 665 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:8185
Petitioners are the husband and sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother- in-Law (Nandoi) ofcomplainant/first-informant ofFIRNo.89/2011 under
Sections 498-A/406/34 ofZPC registered at P.S. Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, who were granted pre-arrest bail by the sessions court on the basis of settlement agreement of 9"" December, 2011 (Annexure P-4). The aforesaid settlement agreement (Annexure P-4) reached through the
Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was not honoured and therefore, pre-arrest bail of petitioner-i?<3v/ Shanker was cancelled by the sessions court vide order of lO"' January, 2013 and by subsequent order of 19'*' March, 2013 pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners-DevewJer
Kumar and Priya also stands cancelled.
Upon hearing, it transpires that petitioners are putting blame on complainant/first-informant for default in compliance with the settlement agreement {Annexure P-4) whereas the complainant side is blaming petitioners for it. In such a situation, it is deemed appropriate that petitioners' pre-arrest bail application is considered on merits as it is not possible to determine inthis proceeding that who is at fault in not acting upon aforesaid Settlement Agreement {Annexure P-4).
Accordingly, impugned order cancelling ofpetitioner's bail aswell as order granting bail to petitioner is set aside. However, upon petitioners filing fresh applications to seek pre-arrest bail before the sessions court within one week, no coercive steps be taken against them till the said applications are considered bythe concerned court.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the charge-sheet has been filed wherein petitioners-DevenJer Kumar and
Priyahave been shown inColumn No.12, which indicates that there is no
BailAppln. No.205 &665 of2013 Page2 > sufficient material against them.
In view thereof, impugned order qua petitioners-Devewc?er Kumar and Priya is quashed with liberty to petitioners-Devew^/er Kumar and
Priya to have recourse to law iftrial court chooses to summon them.
These two petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 19,2013 s BailAppln. No.205 &665 of2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT