Full Text
Translation output
$-5, 41 & 42 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 354/2013
MUKESHBANSAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.P.Singh, Adv. . _ yersus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma A^ for State with SI Ved Parkash
Mr.R.P.Sharma, Adv.for complainant And
BAIL APPLN. 354/2013
MUKESHBANSAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.P.Singh, Adv. . _ yersus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma A^ for State with SI Ved Parkash
Mr.R.P.Sharma, Adv.for complainant And
BAIL APPLN. 291/2013
PAWANMODA@ PAWAN KUMAR MODA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Choudhary, Adv.
PAWANMODA@ PAWAN KUMAR MODA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Choudhary, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr.Naveen SharmaAPP for Statewith 2013:DHC:6951
Through: Mr.Naveen SharmaAPP for Statewith 2013:DHC:6951
And
BAIL APPLN. 341/2013
JAWAHAR YADAV Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.P.Singh, Adv.
JAWAHAR YADAV Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.P.Singh, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
20.03.2013 By this common order I shall dispose of the bail applications filed by
Mukesh Bansal, Pawan Moda@ Pawan Kumar Moda and Jawahar Yadav @
Kalia. All these petitioners are co-accused in FIR No.4/2013 registered against them under Section 447/511/392/427/506/34 IPC at PS Bhalaswa
Diary. As per the prosecution case on 9.11.2012 Mukesh Bansal and Pawan
Moda started threatening the complainant with the claim, that they had purchased the plot in question. These persons again came on 21.11.2012 at the site andtheytook away wooden scrap in a vehicle from the custody and possession of a tenant in the property named Mr.Jitender. The said wooden scrap as per the prosecution case was later found at the plot of the contractor Kalia. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute regarding the ownership of the plot in question and both the parties are inpossession of valid title documents andthe primedispute between the parties is with regard to the exact demarcation of the plot and Khasra number where the plot is located.
These bail applications have beenstrongly opposed by counsel forthe complainant. Duringthe course of arguments Mr.R.P.Sharma counsel for the complainant has admitted the fact thatthesepetitioners are not in possession of the plot which belonged to the complainant and it is the complainant alone who is in possession of the saidplot. Counsel for the complainant has also raised a contention that the value of the wooden scrap was approximately Rs.1,25 lacs which these petitioners have stolen from the plot in question from the custody and possession of one Mr.Jitender.
I have heard counsel for the parties. All these petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by petitioner, Mukesh Bansal, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
The said amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited without prejudice to his rights and contentions and onthe deposit ofthe same, the same shall be kept inFDR for a initial period ofsix months with automatic renewals thereafter. Accordingly, in the event ofarrest, the petitioners shall be granted bail, on their furnishing personal bond in the sumof Rs.25,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O. of the concerned police station, subject to the
^indition that the petitioners shall fially cooperate in investigation and will not create any hindrance orimpediment during the course ofinvestigation.
With these directions, the present bail applications stand disposed of
Dasti KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MARCH 20,2013
20.03.2013 By this common order I shall dispose of the bail applications filed by
Mukesh Bansal, Pawan Moda@ Pawan Kumar Moda and Jawahar Yadav @
Kalia. All these petitioners are co-accused in FIR No.4/2013 registered against them under Section 447/511/392/427/506/34 IPC at PS Bhalaswa
Diary. As per the prosecution case on 9.11.2012 Mukesh Bansal and Pawan
Moda started threatening the complainant with the claim, that they had purchased the plot in question. These persons again came on 21.11.2012 at the site andtheytook away wooden scrap in a vehicle from the custody and possession of a tenant in the property named Mr.Jitender. The said wooden scrap as per the prosecution case was later found at the plot of the contractor Kalia. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute regarding the ownership of the plot in question and both the parties are inpossession of valid title documents andthe primedispute between the parties is with regard to the exact demarcation of the plot and Khasra number where the plot is located.
These bail applications have beenstrongly opposed by counsel forthe complainant. Duringthe course of arguments Mr.R.P.Sharma counsel for the complainant has admitted the fact thatthesepetitioners are not in possession of the plot which belonged to the complainant and it is the complainant alone who is in possession of the saidplot. Counsel for the complainant has also raised a contention that the value of the wooden scrap was approximately Rs.1,25 lacs which these petitioners have stolen from the plot in question from the custody and possession of one Mr.Jitender.
I have heard counsel for the parties. All these petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the deposit of Rs.50,000/- by petitioner, Mukesh Bansal, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
The said amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited without prejudice to his rights and contentions and onthe deposit ofthe same, the same shall be kept inFDR for a initial period ofsix months with automatic renewals thereafter. Accordingly, in the event ofarrest, the petitioners shall be granted bail, on their furnishing personal bond in the sumof Rs.25,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O. of the concerned police station, subject to the
^indition that the petitioners shall fially cooperate in investigation and will not create any hindrance orimpediment during the course ofinvestigation.
With these directions, the present bail applications stand disposed of
Dasti KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MARCH 20,2013
JUDGMENT