Full Text
Translation output
$-39 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 967/2017
SUNIL ALAGH Petitioner
Through :Mr. Manav Gupta, Ms. Esha Dutt, Ms. Ridhi Munjal and Mr. Sahil Garg, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 967/2017
SUNIL ALAGH Petitioner
Through :Mr. Manav Gupta, Ms. Esha Dutt, Ms. Ridhi Munjal and Mr. Sahil Garg, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through :Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with Inspector Nitin Kumar, EOW for the respondent no. 1
Through :Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with Inspector Nitin Kumar, EOW for the respondent no. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
14.03.2017 Learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that bail was granted to the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21^' September, 2016 passed in Bail
Application no. 562/2016 on the ground that respondent no. 2 had already paid ?4 crores to the complainant, pursuant to the MOU dated 29^*^
September, 2014 and could not pay the balance amount since he was in custody. Despite having been granted bail vide order dated 21®^ September, 2016, respondent no. 2 has not complied the terms of settlement.
Accordingly, bail may be cancelled. I do not find any force in this contention oflearned counsel for the petitioner.
)
2017:DHC:8034 '< / J Aperusal oforder dated 21^' September, 2016 shows that bail was not granted in view ofthe compromise. Bail was granted keeping in view the fact that investigation was over; respondent no. 2 was in custody for over two years; trial was likely to take time; material witnesses had already been examined, inasmuch as, maximum sentence provided under Section 406 IPG was thi-ee years and under Section 420 IPG was seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Arvind Mohan Johri and
Another vs. State of U.P. and another Stock Exchange, Mumbai, (2005) 4
Supreme Gourt Gases 634, which I find to be in the context ofdifferent facts and ofno help to the petitioner. No ground is made out for cancellation of bail.
Petition is dismissed.
MARCH 14,2017 rb .K/WTHAK.J.
2017:DHC:8034
14.03.2017 Learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that bail was granted to the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21^' September, 2016 passed in Bail
Application no. 562/2016 on the ground that respondent no. 2 had already paid ?4 crores to the complainant, pursuant to the MOU dated 29^*^
September, 2014 and could not pay the balance amount since he was in custody. Despite having been granted bail vide order dated 21®^ September, 2016, respondent no. 2 has not complied the terms of settlement.
Accordingly, bail may be cancelled. I do not find any force in this contention oflearned counsel for the petitioner.
)
2017:DHC:8034 '< / J Aperusal oforder dated 21^' September, 2016 shows that bail was not granted in view ofthe compromise. Bail was granted keeping in view the fact that investigation was over; respondent no. 2 was in custody for over two years; trial was likely to take time; material witnesses had already been examined, inasmuch as, maximum sentence provided under Section 406 IPG was thi-ee years and under Section 420 IPG was seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Arvind Mohan Johri and
Another vs. State of U.P. and another Stock Exchange, Mumbai, (2005) 4
Supreme Gourt Gases 634, which I find to be in the context ofdifferent facts and ofno help to the petitioner. No ground is made out for cancellation of bail.
Petition is dismissed.
MARCH 14,2017 rb .K/WTHAK.J.
2017:DHC:8034
JUDGMENT