Full Text
Translation output
r $-5 &6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.357/2019
TUSHAR ANURAGI Petitioner
Through:Mr.SatyaPrakash Gautam,Advocate
BAIL APPLN.357/2019
TUSHAR ANURAGI Petitioner
Through:Mr.SatyaPrakash Gautam,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE(NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through:Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP
Through:Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP
BAIL APPLN.366/2019
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through:Mr.Satya Prakash Gautam,Advocate
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through:Mr.Satya Prakash Gautam,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through:Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP
Through:Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
25.02.2019 The two petitioners alongwith one another(Charan Singh)had approached the court of Sessions for release on anticipatory bail by bail applications (2244/2018, 2245/2018 and 2246/2018) in the context of FIR no.591/2018 of police station Karawal Nagar involving offences punishable under Sections 420,406,468,120B,34
IPG. The court ofSessions passed the following order on 31.12.2018 disposing ofthe said applications :-
BAIL APPLN.357/2019&366/2019 page 1 of3
2019:DHC:7361 "31.12.2018 Pre: Mr. Tofeeq Ahmad,Id. Addl.PPfor the State
Sh.Ram Kumar,Id. Counselfor accused/applicant. lO ispresent.
Arguments on the bail applications heard and gone through the records.
It is argued by the Id. Counsel for accused that accused are in J/C and no custodial interrogation is required and no purpose shall be served to keep the accused persons behind the bars and application may be allowed.
On the other hand. Id. Addl. PP for the state vehemently opposed the application on the ground that accused persons/applicants madeforgery on the cheque ofcomplainant Ram Kishan and amount ofRs.4,80,000/- was got transferred on the basis offorged cheque, in the account of M K S Logistic from the account of complainant. It isfurther argued that FSL result is yet to be received.
In thefacts and circumstances ofthe case and as the allegations against the accused are serious in nature therefore I am not inclined to grant bail to accused / applicants. The bail applications ofaccused/applicants are disposed offas dismissed."
The counsel for the petitioners, as also the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State, confirm that the petitioners (as indeed the third person named Charan Singh)have not been arrested and so are not in custody. The counsel for the petitioners has shown a copy ofthe applications whereby prayer for release on anticipatory bail was made, it clearly showing that the petitioners had approached the said court apprehending arrest and not being injudicial custody. It is clear thatthe court ofSessions has not
BAIL APPLN.357/2019& 366/2019 page 2of3
V' gone through the record,it having been misled for some reason or the other to believe that it was dealing with applications for regular bail.
The order dated 31.12.2018 ofAdditional Sessions Judge is set aside. The anticipatory bail applications ofthe petitioners are revived on the file of the court of Sessions which shall take them up for appropriate consideration on 27.02.2019. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court ofSessions accordingly.
Dastiunder the signatures ofthe Court Master. c/
G A,J R K FEBRUARY 25,2019 yg
25.02.2019 The two petitioners alongwith one another(Charan Singh)had approached the court of Sessions for release on anticipatory bail by bail applications (2244/2018, 2245/2018 and 2246/2018) in the context of FIR no.591/2018 of police station Karawal Nagar involving offences punishable under Sections 420,406,468,120B,34
IPG. The court ofSessions passed the following order on 31.12.2018 disposing ofthe said applications :-
BAIL APPLN.357/2019&366/2019 page 1 of3
2019:DHC:7361 "31.12.2018 Pre: Mr. Tofeeq Ahmad,Id. Addl.PPfor the State
Sh.Ram Kumar,Id. Counselfor accused/applicant. lO ispresent.
Arguments on the bail applications heard and gone through the records.
It is argued by the Id. Counsel for accused that accused are in J/C and no custodial interrogation is required and no purpose shall be served to keep the accused persons behind the bars and application may be allowed.
On the other hand. Id. Addl. PP for the state vehemently opposed the application on the ground that accused persons/applicants madeforgery on the cheque ofcomplainant Ram Kishan and amount ofRs.4,80,000/- was got transferred on the basis offorged cheque, in the account of M K S Logistic from the account of complainant. It isfurther argued that FSL result is yet to be received.
In thefacts and circumstances ofthe case and as the allegations against the accused are serious in nature therefore I am not inclined to grant bail to accused / applicants. The bail applications ofaccused/applicants are disposed offas dismissed."
The counsel for the petitioners, as also the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State, confirm that the petitioners (as indeed the third person named Charan Singh)have not been arrested and so are not in custody. The counsel for the petitioners has shown a copy ofthe applications whereby prayer for release on anticipatory bail was made, it clearly showing that the petitioners had approached the said court apprehending arrest and not being injudicial custody. It is clear thatthe court ofSessions has not
BAIL APPLN.357/2019& 366/2019 page 2of3
V' gone through the record,it having been misled for some reason or the other to believe that it was dealing with applications for regular bail.
The order dated 31.12.2018 ofAdditional Sessions Judge is set aside. The anticipatory bail applications ofthe petitioners are revived on the file of the court of Sessions which shall take them up for appropriate consideration on 27.02.2019. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court ofSessions accordingly.
Dastiunder the signatures ofthe Court Master. c/
G A,J R K FEBRUARY 25,2019 yg
BAIL APPLN.357/2019&366/2019 page 3 of3 f--.
JUDGMENT