Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 14, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 14, 2019
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2018
NITIN RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Ms. Aakansha Bansal, Advocates
NITIN RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Ms. Aakansha Bansal, Advocates
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Vijay
Kumar Mr. Rishi Manchanda and Mr. Jagdish Sethi, Advocates with complainant in person
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Vijay
Kumar Mr. Rishi Manchanda and Mr. Jagdish Sethi, Advocates with complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR 227/2017, under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi. While entertaining this petition, petitioner was directed to join the investigation and interim protection from his arrest was granted. Vide order of 23rd August, 2018 status report was sought, which has been handed over by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and it is taken on record.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whatever dowry articles were there with petitioner, have been returned to complainant of this FIR.
Perusal of status report reveals that dowry articles have been returned, but there is no reference to the jewellery items.
2019:DHC:257
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR 227/2017, under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi. While entertaining this petition, petitioner was directed to join the investigation and interim protection from his arrest was granted. Vide order of 23rd August, 2018 status report was sought, which has been handed over by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and it is taken on record.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whatever dowry articles were there with petitioner, have been returned to complainant of this FIR.
Perusal of status report reveals that dowry articles have been returned, but there is no reference to the jewellery items.
2019:DHC:257
BAIL APPLN. 1971/2018
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are receipts regarding jewellery items worth ₹7,00,000/- which are to be returned by petitioner. This is disputed by petitioner’s counsel.
During the course of hearing, petitioner’s counsel submitted that without prejudice to the rights of petitioner, to show the bona fide, FDR of ₹7,00,000/- in the name of the trial court would be deposited by petitioner with the trial court within four weeks.
Let it be so done.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, interim order of
23rd August, 2018 is made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioner be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of
₹20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. It is made clear that if petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid voluntary undertaking given to this Court, then the State/complainant can seek the cancellation of this order.
This application is accordingly disposed of Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2019 v 2019:DHC:257
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are receipts regarding jewellery items worth ₹7,00,000/- which are to be returned by petitioner. This is disputed by petitioner’s counsel.
During the course of hearing, petitioner’s counsel submitted that without prejudice to the rights of petitioner, to show the bona fide, FDR of ₹7,00,000/- in the name of the trial court would be deposited by petitioner with the trial court within four weeks.
Let it be so done.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, interim order of
23rd August, 2018 is made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioner be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of
₹20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. It is made clear that if petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid voluntary undertaking given to this Court, then the State/complainant can seek the cancellation of this order.
This application is accordingly disposed of Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2019 v 2019:DHC:257
JUDGMENT