Kuldeep Sharma v. State

Delhi High Court · 17 Jul 2013 · 2013:DHC:7022
Sunil Gaur
Bail Appln. 575/2013
2013:DHC:7022
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted absolute pre-arrest bail to petitioners Kuldeep Sharma and Sandeep Kumar after they cooperated with the investigation and the prosecution case weakened.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 575/2013
KULDEEP SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. RahulTyagi, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector K.K. Tiwari
BAIL APPLN. 792/2013
SANDEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Through: Mr. RahulTyagi, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector K.K. Tiwari
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
17.07.2013 While entertaining the pre- arrest bail application of petitioner-
Kuldeep Sharma, the factual background of this case has been noted in order of8'^ April, 2013.
BailApplication No.575/2013 Page1 Bail Application No. 792/2013
2013:DHC:7022 j Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioners in th^ afore-captioned two petitions havejoined the investigation in terms of the last order.
In view of the fact that complamant has not supported the pi^osecution case qua co-accused of petitioner and the initial version of thp PGR official- SI Kamal Singh that information regarding revolver being used in this incidentwas foundto be incorrect, interimorders of 8""
April, 2013 (in Bail AppHcation No. 575/2013) and lO'^ May, 2013 (in
Bail Application No. 792/2013) are made absolute.
Withoutcommenting on the merits of this case, it is directed that in the event ofarrest, petitioners- Kuldeep Sharma, son oflate Shri Jagdish
Pi[asad Sharma and Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri Karan Pal Singh be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of
^0,000/- with one local surety each inthe like amount, tothe satisfaction of the Arrestmg Officer/ Investigating Officer. Needless to say that if ki petitioners do notjoin and cooperate inthe investigation ofthis case, then respondent -State wouldbe at liberty to get this orderrevoked.
ORDER

1 With aforesaid observations, above captioned two petitions are disposed of Dasti. •^UMLGAtR)

JUDGE JULY 17, 2013 r Application No.575/2013 BailApplication No.792/2013 Page 2