Full Text
Translation output
' ^ i?" V - , /
• I
;; •// •V-, ; ' ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1555/2017 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1456/2017
I ;
^RAKESH ' ' ......Petitioner;
Through Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr./Adv.' with •
, ' Mr.Aditya yikram, Mr.Mikhil Sharda :/ and Mr.Mehtab Singh Saridhu,, , Advocates. , '
• I
;; •// •V-, ; ' ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1555/2017 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1456/2017
I ;
^RAKESH ' ' ......Petitioner;
Through Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr./Adv.' with •
, ' Mr.Aditya yikram, Mr.Mikhil Sharda :/ and Mr.Mehtab Singh Saridhu,, , Advocates. , '
VERSUS
STATE , ; , .....Respondent - , , ' Through ; Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the
" ' I ' , State with SI Raj Kuinar. . ' BAIL APPLN. ,1558/2017 &'Crl.M.(Bd^^^ ' - v , BIJE^ERVATS : ^ v : !••••• Petitioner :
; / Through , :^.Arvind Nigam/Sr. Adv^^ with.
• / . Mr.Aditya Vikram; and ^
- V - Prabhakar and Avinash, Advocates. - \ STATE V
" ' I ' , State with SI Raj Kuinar. . ' BAIL APPLN. ,1558/2017 &'Crl.M.(Bd^^^ ' - v , BIJE^ERVATS : ^ v : !••••• Petitioner :
; / Through , :^.Arvind Nigam/Sr. Adv^^ with.
• / . Mr.Aditya Vikram; and ^
- V - Prabhakar and Avinash, Advocates. - \ STATE V
CORAM:
VERSUS
.: , , > Respondent
Through, , .Ms.Neeiam Sharma, APP for the •
• , State with SI R^j'Kumar.
ORDiER 01,03.2018
• ' ' f . ieation. Learned' , investigation on 12.01.2018 but they are not fiilly cooperating with!
2018:DHC:8178 ^ ^the, investigation. Th^ source from where the deshi /katta was, • , : , recovered i.e. the place ofincident (which was found iii the scooter of
: , J^tto^jedivulged. - : ^ •: ,-
• This Court notes that,this FIR i.e. the FIR No.272/2017 had ;
, , . .registered, under Sections 323/324/354/307/452, rea^^
Section 34 ofthe IP,C as also under Sections.25/54/5,9 of the Arms
. . _ Act.. There were two iiyured ofwhom,one is stated to have received
. F^^ousJiyuries. .Cross, FIR i.e.'th^ . N.suffered injuries. Attention has been-drawn to the ML,Cs of the
^ ^ •• ,"^^etiti6ners; -• • - V'
,; petitioners have a:history'of earlieriitiga^^^^
:• , . , ^ ; is,,not in dispute; FIR No.,I93/2013;had;been.registered against the
: : : / . .f®^P®°'i®«8fO"P Vhder Ssctions,3Q7/34 off^
^ PR a.e. the,FIR.to;i94/2013) had been registered'^
; , counsel for the, respondent-points ort that this yendetta Has '
; • .,, , ''een conductk.upon the rbspondent only forthe reasonthatjtwi : .
, : .) • fte,'asking of the respondent that ah'FIR under the; Prevention,of , „ , Corruption Act, 1988 has beeii registered against the petitionergroup
- • ',\ months ago; this incident isan QU^come ofthat.
• : \Without delving into the merits ofthe controversy and^without v V
^- - • commenting upbn the same, this Court is of the, view that since the '
. petitioners have joined tfte investigation and undertake to continue to
>. join,tlie investigation as and when summoned by the investigating -..
V, , /: Ptficer with afurther,undertaking:that they w i l l ; -
,, the mvestigation andnotinflijence the witnesses;;the interim order is' V
• \ -
•• y made absolute^ In the.event of arrest; petitioners be admitted to bail on their fumishing apersonal bond iii the sum ofRs.lQ,'0b6/- with one
' . Petitions disposed^f.
MARCH Oi; 2018 ndn laster.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
Through, , .Ms.Neeiam Sharma, APP for the •
• , State with SI R^j'Kumar.
ORDiER 01,03.2018
• ' ' f . ieation. Learned' , investigation on 12.01.2018 but they are not fiilly cooperating with!
2018:DHC:8178 ^ ^the, investigation. Th^ source from where the deshi /katta was, • , : , recovered i.e. the place ofincident (which was found iii the scooter of
: , J^tto^jedivulged. - : ^ •: ,-
• This Court notes that,this FIR i.e. the FIR No.272/2017 had ;
, , . .registered, under Sections 323/324/354/307/452, rea^^
Section 34 ofthe IP,C as also under Sections.25/54/5,9 of the Arms
. . _ Act.. There were two iiyured ofwhom,one is stated to have received
. F^^ousJiyuries. .Cross, FIR i.e.'th^ . N.suffered injuries. Attention has been-drawn to the ML,Cs of the
^ ^ •• ,"^^etiti6ners; -• • - V'
,; petitioners have a:history'of earlieriitiga^^^^
:• , . , ^ ; is,,not in dispute; FIR No.,I93/2013;had;been.registered against the
: : : / . .f®^P®°'i®«8fO"P Vhder Ssctions,3Q7/34 off^
^ PR a.e. the,FIR.to;i94/2013) had been registered'^
; , counsel for the, respondent-points ort that this yendetta Has '
; • .,, , ''een conductk.upon the rbspondent only forthe reasonthatjtwi : .
, : .) • fte,'asking of the respondent that ah'FIR under the; Prevention,of , „ , Corruption Act, 1988 has beeii registered against the petitionergroup
- • ',\ months ago; this incident isan QU^come ofthat.
• : \Without delving into the merits ofthe controversy and^without v V
^- - • commenting upbn the same, this Court is of the, view that since the '
. petitioners have joined tfte investigation and undertake to continue to
>. join,tlie investigation as and when summoned by the investigating -..
V, , /: Ptficer with afurther,undertaking:that they w i l l ; -
,, the mvestigation andnotinflijence the witnesses;;the interim order is' V
• \ -
•• y made absolute^ In the.event of arrest; petitioners be admitted to bail on their fumishing apersonal bond iii the sum ofRs.lQ,'0b6/- with one
' . Petitions disposed^f.
MARCH Oi; 2018 ndn laster.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT