Full Text
Translation output
#38
% 02.06.2011
Present: Mr.Vijay Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State/respondent.
None for respondent No.2.
+Cri.M.A.No.6880/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Cri.M.C.No.1937/2011
Petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail g~anted to the respondent No.2 vide order of learned A.S.J. dated 18.12.2010. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bail was granted to respondent No.2 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before CAW Cell and respondent No.2, after obtaining the bail, has failed to fulfill his obligations under the settlement. He submits that he has even failed to comply with the directions of the Court dated 18.12.2010 to fulfill his obligations.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
)etitioner. On perusal of the bail order dated 28.5.2010, it transpires that trial court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 on merits, therefore I find no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
JUNE 02, 2011 ks
(AJITB~E)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:11193
% 02.06.2011
Present: Mr.Vijay Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State/respondent.
None for respondent No.2.
+Cri.M.A.No.6880/2011(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Cri.M.C.No.1937/2011
Petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail g~anted to the respondent No.2 vide order of learned A.S.J. dated 18.12.2010. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bail was granted to respondent No.2 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before CAW Cell and respondent No.2, after obtaining the bail, has failed to fulfill his obligations under the settlement. He submits that he has even failed to comply with the directions of the Court dated 18.12.2010 to fulfill his obligations.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
)etitioner. On perusal of the bail order dated 28.5.2010, it transpires that trial court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 on merits, therefore I find no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
JUNE 02, 2011 ks
(AJITB~E)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:11193
JUDGMENT