Full Text
Translation output
\ $-11 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1135/2013
SMT SURESH Petitioner
Through Mr. O.P. Panwar and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates.
BAIL APPLN. 1135/2013
SMT SURESH Petitioner
Through Mr. O.P. Panwar and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR RAJESH STATE & ANR Respondent
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Pradeep
Kumar, P.S. P.P. Beri.
Mr. Pankaj, Advocate with complainant in person.
Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Pradeep
Kumar, P.S. P.P. Beri.
Mr. Pankaj, Advocate with complainant in person.
BAIL APPLN. 1137/2013
Through
Through
VERSUS
Through Petitioner Mr. O.P. Panwar and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Pradeep Kumar, P.S. F.P. Beri.
Mr. Pankaj, Advocate with complainant in person.
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Pradeep Kumar, P.S. F.P. Beri.
Mr. Pankaj, Advocate with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
18.07.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, petitioners seekpre-arrest bail in FIR No. 16/2013, under Sections 452/323/34 of the LP.C. registered at police station Fateh Pur Beri, Delhi. While entertaining these two applications, interim protection was granted to petitioners
Bail. App.1135/2013 &BailA. No. 1137/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:6972 subject to their joining investigation. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for State confirms that in terms of last order, petitioners have joined the investigation but submits, on instructions from counsel for complainant/first informant, that petitioners are extending threats to complainant/first informant. Learned counsel for petitioners denies it but submits that he has instructions from petitioners to undertake not to pick up any quarrel with the complainant party in future.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, interim order of
July, 2013 is made absolute with a rider that if petitioners extend any threat to the complainant party or quarrel with them then respondent-
State or complainant-first informant would be at liberty to seek revocation of this order.
In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer. Needless to say, petitioners shall join and cooperate with the investigation and if they fail to do so, then respondent would be at liberty to get this order revoked. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of
Dasti.
JULY 18, 2013 pkv Bail. App. 1135/2013 & Bail A. No. 1137/2013
U"':
GAUR)
Judge Page 2
!']• 1^' ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1135/2013
SMT SURESH Petitioner
Through: Nemo
18.07.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, petitioners seekpre-arrest bail in FIR No. 16/2013, under Sections 452/323/34 of the LP.C. registered at police station Fateh Pur Beri, Delhi. While entertaining these two applications, interim protection was granted to petitioners
Bail. App.1135/2013 &BailA. No. 1137/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:6972 subject to their joining investigation. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for State confirms that in terms of last order, petitioners have joined the investigation but submits, on instructions from counsel for complainant/first informant, that petitioners are extending threats to complainant/first informant. Learned counsel for petitioners denies it but submits that he has instructions from petitioners to undertake not to pick up any quarrel with the complainant party in future.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, interim order of
July, 2013 is made absolute with a rider that if petitioners extend any threat to the complainant party or quarrel with them then respondent-
State or complainant-first informant would be at liberty to seek revocation of this order.
In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer. Needless to say, petitioners shall join and cooperate with the investigation and if they fail to do so, then respondent would be at liberty to get this order revoked. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of
Dasti.
JULY 18, 2013 pkv Bail. App. 1135/2013 & Bail A. No. 1137/2013
U"':
GAUR)
Judge Page 2
!']• 1^' ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1135/2013
SMT SURESH Petitioner
Through: Nemo
VERSUS
STATE & ANR ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
BAIL APPLN. 1137/2013
RAJESH Petitioner
Through: Nemo
RAJESH Petitioner
Through: Nemo
VERSUS
STATE & ANR ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
23.07.2013 Office note perused.
The number of FIR i.e. 16/2013 in the order of 18"^ July, 2013 be read as FIR No. 166/2013.
JULY 23, 2013 s JNIL GAU^J Page
23.07.2013 Office note perused.
The number of FIR i.e. 16/2013 in the order of 18"^ July, 2013 be read as FIR No. 166/2013.
JULY 23, 2013 s JNIL GAU^J Page
JUDGMENT