Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1708/2012
SANJEEV KUMAR @ SANJAY VERMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.S. Smgh and Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocates
BAIL APPLN. 1708/2012
SANJEEV KUMAR @ SANJAY VERMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.S. Smgh and Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector Jagdeep Malik, Police Station Geeta Colony.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector Jagdeep Malik, Police Station Geeta Colony.
BAIL APPLN. 1709/2012
ANIL RlSm & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.S. Singh and Mr.Rahul
ANIL RlSm & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.S. Singh and Mr.Rahul
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 1710/2012
K L VERMA & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.S. Singh and Mr.Rahul
K L VERMA & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr.K.S. Singh and Mr.Rahul
VERSUS
Bail Appln. No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:8156
2013:DHC:8156
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNBL GAUR
29.01.2013 c\.
In the above captioned three petitions, petitioners are the parents-in-laws, husband, brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws of the
Complainant/first informant of F.I.R. No. 41/2011 under Sections
498A/406/34 ofI.P.C. registered at Police Station Geeta Colony.
While entertaining these petitions, interim protection was granted to them and they had joined the investigation and after completion of investigation, in the charge sheet filed offences under Section 307 and Section 328 of I.P.C. have been added. Now the case is pending for trial.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that initially the pre- arrest bail was declined to petitioner - husband and thereafter, petitioner surrendered and had remained behind bars for eleven days. Thereafter, regular bail was granted to petitioner - husband and in the charge sheet filed, offences under Section 307 and
Section 328 of I.P.C. have been added at the instance of complainant party although in the charge sheet it is mentioned that it has been added after discussion with Additional Public
Prosecutor and the senior officers and no independent investigation
BailAppln. No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 2 r was made so far as offences under Sections 307 and 328 of I.P.C. are concerned, before putting them in the charge sheet and that after the instance of alleged poisoning, complamant - wife had given a statement before the SDM exonerating petitioner - husband and so on account of subsequent adding of offences under Section
307 and Section 328of I.P.C., pre-arrest bail ought not be declined
Jo petitioners, who are respectable citizens and well settled inlife.
The strong opposition to the grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioners is on the ground that petitioner - Rekha, sister-in-law of the complainant - wife is in Delhi PoUce and at her instance, the offences committed by petitioner - husband have been diluted and in view of the gravity of the offence committed, petitioners do not deserve concession ofpre-arrest bail.
Upon hearing and on consideration of material on record, I find that the investigation of this case is already over andthe matter k is pending trial and the gravity of the offences purportedly committed has to be considered in view of the fact that offences under Section 307 and Section 328 of I.P.C. have been subsequently added, and upon doing so, the interim order protecting petitioners fi-om arrest is made absolute. Consequently, these three petitions areallowed while confirming the interim order of 30^November, 2012.
Without commenting upon merits ofthis case, in the event of arrest, petitioners be released on bail on fiimishing their personal bond in the sum of ^0,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to petitioners
Bail Appln. No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 3 r i abiding bytheconditions prescribed bySection 438 of Cr.P.C.
With aforesaid direction, these three petitions are disposed of. gaur/
Judge JANUARY 29,2013 ^kb Bail Appln.No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 4
29.01.2013 c\.
In the above captioned three petitions, petitioners are the parents-in-laws, husband, brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws of the
Complainant/first informant of F.I.R. No. 41/2011 under Sections
498A/406/34 ofI.P.C. registered at Police Station Geeta Colony.
While entertaining these petitions, interim protection was granted to them and they had joined the investigation and after completion of investigation, in the charge sheet filed offences under Section 307 and Section 328 of I.P.C. have been added. Now the case is pending for trial.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that initially the pre- arrest bail was declined to petitioner - husband and thereafter, petitioner surrendered and had remained behind bars for eleven days. Thereafter, regular bail was granted to petitioner - husband and in the charge sheet filed, offences under Section 307 and
Section 328 of I.P.C. have been added at the instance of complainant party although in the charge sheet it is mentioned that it has been added after discussion with Additional Public
Prosecutor and the senior officers and no independent investigation
BailAppln. No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 2 r was made so far as offences under Sections 307 and 328 of I.P.C. are concerned, before putting them in the charge sheet and that after the instance of alleged poisoning, complamant - wife had given a statement before the SDM exonerating petitioner - husband and so on account of subsequent adding of offences under Section
307 and Section 328of I.P.C., pre-arrest bail ought not be declined
Jo petitioners, who are respectable citizens and well settled inlife.
The strong opposition to the grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioners is on the ground that petitioner - Rekha, sister-in-law of the complainant - wife is in Delhi PoUce and at her instance, the offences committed by petitioner - husband have been diluted and in view of the gravity of the offence committed, petitioners do not deserve concession ofpre-arrest bail.
Upon hearing and on consideration of material on record, I find that the investigation of this case is already over andthe matter k is pending trial and the gravity of the offences purportedly committed has to be considered in view of the fact that offences under Section 307 and Section 328 of I.P.C. have been subsequently added, and upon doing so, the interim order protecting petitioners fi-om arrest is made absolute. Consequently, these three petitions areallowed while confirming the interim order of 30^November, 2012.
Without commenting upon merits ofthis case, in the event of arrest, petitioners be released on bail on fiimishing their personal bond in the sum of ^0,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to petitioners
Bail Appln. No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 3 r i abiding bytheconditions prescribed bySection 438 of Cr.P.C.
With aforesaid direction, these three petitions are disposed of. gaur/
Judge JANUARY 29,2013 ^kb Bail Appln.No. 1708/2012,1709/2012 &1710/2012 Page 4
JUDGMENT