Full Text
Translation output
$-10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1021/2022
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manu Bakshi,Mr.Rajul Chandhok and Ms.Shagun Khurana,Advocates.
VINOD
BAIL APPLN. 1021/2022
Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manu Bakshi,Mr.Rajul Chandhok and Ms.Shagun Khurana,Advocates.
VINOD
VERSUS
STATEOF NCIOFDELHI Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Murari Lai,PS D.B.G.Road.
Through: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Murari Lai,PS D.B.G.Road.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
13.07.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of presentbailapplicationsincetheFSLreporthad been received,anapplication had been preferred before the learned trial court. However,the same was dismissed in view ofpendency ofpresent application for regular bail before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that present petition may be
^ permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an application before the learned trial court in the first instance.
Consideringthefactsand circumstances,the application is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe petitioner and with liberty to file an application before learned trial court.
Vv — ^
JULY13,2022« ANOOPKUMAR MENDIRATTA,J.
2022:DHC:5939
13.07.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of presentbailapplicationsincetheFSLreporthad been received,anapplication had been preferred before the learned trial court. However,the same was dismissed in view ofpendency ofpresent application for regular bail before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that present petition may be
^ permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an application before the learned trial court in the first instance.
Consideringthefactsand circumstances,the application is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe petitioner and with liberty to file an application before learned trial court.
Vv — ^
JULY13,2022« ANOOPKUMAR MENDIRATTA,J.
2022:DHC:5939
JUDGMENT