Full Text
Translation output
t
#34
% 05.04.2013
\
Present: Mr. G.B. Sewak, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
Inspector Naveen Chandra.
Crl.
M.A. NO. 4165/13
*
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Bail APP No. 552/2013
By this petition filed under Section438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant ofanticipatory bail.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the other co-accused persons have already been acquitted and therefore this Court may take into consideration the acquittal of the other co-accused persons in granting f- anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that one ofthe
/ co-accused Ms. Meenu was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2013.
The present petition is strongly opposed by the counsel for the State. Counsel submits that the bail application moved by the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.5.2011 and
2013:DHC:6882
I n/ thereafter he was declared proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5.7.2011. Counsel thus submits that being a proclaimed offender the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of the anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the sister-in-law(Nanad) ofthe complainant and it is not denied that the earlier bail application moved by her was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.5.2011, and thereafter, the petitioner has been escaping from the process of law and did not take steps to approach either the Sessions Court or this Court for fresh consideration of her bail. Vide order dated 15.7.2011, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and it is only when the other co-accused persons were acquitted, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Court and then this Court to seek anticipatory bail.
No doubt the co-accused can claim benefit in case there is an acquittal of the other accused persons, but at the same time no accused can fleece from the course of justice as has been done by the petitioner in the j3resent case. The petitioner is accordingly directed to surrender
% before the learned Trial Court and then take steps to move regular bail application. It is directed that the learned Trial Court while taking a decision ou such an application ofthe petitioner shall certainly take into account the fact of acquittal ofthe other accused persons.
In view ofthe above, the present petition stands dismissed.
A
April 05,2013 mg
V
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J
#34
% 05.04.2013
\
Present: Mr. G.B. Sewak, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
Inspector Naveen Chandra.
Crl.
M.A. NO. 4165/13
*
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Bail APP No. 552/2013
By this petition filed under Section438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant ofanticipatory bail.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the other co-accused persons have already been acquitted and therefore this Court may take into consideration the acquittal of the other co-accused persons in granting f- anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that one ofthe
/ co-accused Ms. Meenu was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2013.
The present petition is strongly opposed by the counsel for the State. Counsel submits that the bail application moved by the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.5.2011 and
2013:DHC:6882
I n/ thereafter he was declared proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5.7.2011. Counsel thus submits that being a proclaimed offender the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of the anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the sister-in-law(Nanad) ofthe complainant and it is not denied that the earlier bail application moved by her was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.5.2011, and thereafter, the petitioner has been escaping from the process of law and did not take steps to approach either the Sessions Court or this Court for fresh consideration of her bail. Vide order dated 15.7.2011, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and it is only when the other co-accused persons were acquitted, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Court and then this Court to seek anticipatory bail.
No doubt the co-accused can claim benefit in case there is an acquittal of the other accused persons, but at the same time no accused can fleece from the course of justice as has been done by the petitioner in the j3resent case. The petitioner is accordingly directed to surrender
% before the learned Trial Court and then take steps to move regular bail application. It is directed that the learned Trial Court while taking a decision ou such an application ofthe petitioner shall certainly take into account the fact of acquittal ofthe other accused persons.
In view ofthe above, the present petition stands dismissed.
A
April 05,2013 mg
V
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J
JUDGMENT