Full Text
Translation output
/> $-2 to 6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 80/2017
SANJAY SINGHAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv., .
BAIL APPLN. 80/2017
SANJAY SINGHAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv., .
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with ASI Nanu Ram, PS Dwarka
South.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv. for complainant.
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with ASI Nanu Ram, PS Dwarka
South.
Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv. for complainant.
BAIL APPLN. 204/2017
ASHISH GUPTA
Through:
ASHISH GUPTA
Through:
VERSUS
Petitioner Mr. Jitin, Sahni, Adv. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State South.
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State South.
BAIL APPLN. 247/2017
SUMIT GOEL . '
• Through:
SUMIT GOEL . '
• Through:
VERSUS
STATE
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv.
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv.
BAIL APPLN. 80/2017 & conn.
Respondent Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State South.
Page I of4 2018:DHC:8188
Respondent Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State South.
Page I of4 2018:DHC:8188
BAIL APPLN. 249/2017
ANUPGOEL
Thi-ough:
ANUPGOEL
Thi-ough:
VERSUS
STATE
Through:
Through:
BAIL APPLN. 250/2017
Petitioner Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv. South.
ANKUR GARG Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv.
Petitioner Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv. South.
ANKUR GARG Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE
Through:
South.
Through:
South.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
20.07.2018 The names of these five petitioners have come up in the allegations which are subject matter of ongoing investigation into FIR No. 496/16 of police station Dwarka (South) for offences punishable under Sections
323/341/354/356/406/506/509/498A of Indian Penal Code,, 1860. The petitioner in the first captioned petition i.e. Sanjay Singhal is maternal uncle
20.07.2018 The names of these five petitioners have come up in the allegations which are subject matter of ongoing investigation into FIR No. 496/16 of police station Dwarka (South) for offences punishable under Sections
323/341/354/356/406/506/509/498A of Indian Penal Code,, 1860. The petitioner in the first captioned petition i.e. Sanjay Singhal is maternal uncle
BAIL APPLN. 80/2017 & conn: Page 2 of4
// of Naman Gupta, the husband of the complainant Neha Gupta while the other petitioners Ashish Gupta, Sumit Goel, Anup Goel and Ankur Garg are his friends. The allegations against these petitioners in the said FIR, particularly relate to the incident of 07.09.2016 wherein two days after
' delivery of the child born to the first inforrnant, they statedly visited her
. father's house and made an attempt to take away the new bom baby in the process assaulting the family members ofthe complainant and members of her paternal family and damaging certain household property. The, allegations against the petitioner Sanjay Singhal include loss of gold chain in the said very incident. The counsel for Sanjay Singhal has pointed out that no such role was attributed to Sanjay Singhal in the FIR, the allegations about his complicity in the loss of gold chain in the said incident having come up in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded later, a contradictory statement having been made in the context of domestic violence act also initiated simultaneously. It is pointed out that on basis of an amicable resolution of part of the dispute with the consent of the complainant's husband Naman Gupta, who was allegedly involved in the same incident as above, with the petitioners he was granted anticipatory bail by the court of Sessions by order dated 07.04.2017. On parity, there is no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar relief Thus, the petitions are allowed. '
It is directed that in the event of the petitioners being arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on ftimishing personal bonds in the sum ofRs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the'like amount
// of Naman Gupta, the husband of the complainant Neha Gupta while the other petitioners Ashish Gupta, Sumit Goel, Anup Goel and Ankur Garg are his friends. The allegations against these petitioners in the said FIR, particularly relate to the incident of 07.09.2016 wherein two days after
' delivery of the child born to the first inforrnant, they statedly visited her
. father's house and made an attempt to take away the new bom baby in the process assaulting the family members ofthe complainant and members of her paternal family and damaging certain household property. The, allegations against the petitioner Sanjay Singhal include loss of gold chain in the said very incident. The counsel for Sanjay Singhal has pointed out that no such role was attributed to Sanjay Singhal in the FIR, the allegations about his complicity in the loss of gold chain in the said incident having come up in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded later, a contradictory statement having been made in the context of domestic violence act also initiated simultaneously. It is pointed out that on basis of an amicable resolution of part of the dispute with the consent of the complainant's husband Naman Gupta, who was allegedly involved in the same incident as above, with the petitioners he was granted anticipatory bail by the court of Sessions by order dated 07.04.2017. On parity, there is no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar relief Thus, the petitions are allowed. '
It is directed that in the event of the petitioners being arrested, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on ftimishing personal bonds in the sum ofRs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the'like amount
BAIL APPLN. 80/2017 & conn. Page 3 of4 subject to the following further conditions
(i) , The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and join theisame as and when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that ofthe surety to the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, , threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; , This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on conclusion of the investigation and process being issued against them by the court of cognizance.
Dasti.
JULY 20, 2018
(i) , The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the investigation and join theisame as and when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to influence any ofthe witnesses connected to the case;
(iii) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that ofthe surety to the investigating officer;
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, , threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; , This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of the petitioners in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on conclusion of the investigation and process being issued against them by the court of cognizance.
Dasti.
JULY 20, 2018
BAILAPPLN. 80/2017 & conn. Page 4 of4
JUDGMENT