Full Text
Translation output
Y
$-40-42 .
- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.670/2018
ANIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
$-40-42 .
- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.670/2018
ANIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S. ChanakyaPuri.
, AND" BAIL APPLN.67i/2018 MANTOSH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S. ChanakyaPuri.
, AND" BAIL APPLN.67i/2018 MANTOSH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(NOT OF DELHI) .... Respondent
Through ' Dr.M.P.SinghjAPP with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S.ChanakyaPuri.
Through ' Dr.M.P.SinghjAPP with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S.ChanakyaPuri.
AND
BAIL APPLN.672/2018
KARTiK Petitioner
Through Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
KARTiK Petitioner
Through Mr.PrashantMendiratta,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) y* .....Respondent
Through Mr.G.M.Farooqui,APP for State ' with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S.Chanakya
Puri.
Through Mr.G.M.Farooqui,APP for State ' with SI Ashok Kumar,P.S.Chanakya
Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
23.03.2018 Learned counseL for the petitioners submits that.petitioners are brothers.They had gone to Bangalore on 25^ January,2018 iov FindDaan
2018:DHC:8203 of their father. All of them returned Delhi only on T February, 2018.
(Boarding passes have been annexed with the application and originals of the same have been shown during the course ofhearing). Learned counsel further submits that on V February, 2018, petitioners were not present in
Delhi and been falsely implicated in this case, since petitioner-Kartik had lodged an FIR No.6/2015 under Section 7/8/13(l)(d) ofthe Prevention of
Corruption Actagainstthe SHO ofpolice station AmbedkarNagar.
Learned AFP contends that on February, 2018, SI Bimal, Ct.
Pradeep Kumar,Ct. Vikas and HC Satish Kumar were on patrolling duty in the area around Basilsila in the Chirag Delhi at about 6:15 PM. When a secret informer met them and informed that petitioners were dealing in spurious liquor. He further informed that one boy Arjun would come to supply spurious liquor to petitioners at about 06:45 PM at Madangir, Dakshinpuri. Accordingly, raiding party of above officials was formed.
One boy \yas seen coming on a scooty and on pointing ofsecret informer, the said boy(Arjun)was apprehended bythe police. Arjun disclosed thathe had come to supply the spurious liquor to the petitioners. That boy was in possession of large quantity of spurious liquor, which was seized. Arjun disclosed that he had broughtthe liquorto supply to petitioners.
I have considered the rival contentions ofthe parties and keeping in mind the totality ofthe facts and circumstances ofthis case,itis ordered that petitioners be released on bail in case of arrest, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of?10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only)each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO ofthe concerned police station.
Petitioners shall, however,cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and whenthey are called uponto do so.
Bail applications are disposed ofin the above terms. Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infiructuous.
Dasti; ' A.K.^ATHAK,J MARCH 23,2018 Pallavi
23.03.2018 Learned counseL for the petitioners submits that.petitioners are brothers.They had gone to Bangalore on 25^ January,2018 iov FindDaan
2018:DHC:8203 of their father. All of them returned Delhi only on T February, 2018.
(Boarding passes have been annexed with the application and originals of the same have been shown during the course ofhearing). Learned counsel further submits that on V February, 2018, petitioners were not present in
Delhi and been falsely implicated in this case, since petitioner-Kartik had lodged an FIR No.6/2015 under Section 7/8/13(l)(d) ofthe Prevention of
Corruption Actagainstthe SHO ofpolice station AmbedkarNagar.
Learned AFP contends that on February, 2018, SI Bimal, Ct.
Pradeep Kumar,Ct. Vikas and HC Satish Kumar were on patrolling duty in the area around Basilsila in the Chirag Delhi at about 6:15 PM. When a secret informer met them and informed that petitioners were dealing in spurious liquor. He further informed that one boy Arjun would come to supply spurious liquor to petitioners at about 06:45 PM at Madangir, Dakshinpuri. Accordingly, raiding party of above officials was formed.
One boy \yas seen coming on a scooty and on pointing ofsecret informer, the said boy(Arjun)was apprehended bythe police. Arjun disclosed thathe had come to supply the spurious liquor to the petitioners. That boy was in possession of large quantity of spurious liquor, which was seized. Arjun disclosed that he had broughtthe liquorto supply to petitioners.
I have considered the rival contentions ofthe parties and keeping in mind the totality ofthe facts and circumstances ofthis case,itis ordered that petitioners be released on bail in case of arrest, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of?10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only)each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO ofthe concerned police station.
Petitioners shall, however,cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and whenthey are called uponto do so.
Bail applications are disposed ofin the above terms. Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infiructuous.
Dasti; ' A.K.^ATHAK,J MARCH 23,2018 Pallavi
JUDGMENT