Dharam Singh v. The State of NCT (Delhi)

Delhi High Court · 02 Feb 2016 · 2016:DHC:8379
P. S. Teji
BAIL APPLN. 195/2016
2016:DHC:8379
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of an anticipatory bail petition after chargesheet filing, dismissing it with liberty to seek regular bail from the trial court.

Full Text
Translation output
Case Mo Year
Date Of Decision Case Type Decided By BAIL APPLN._195_2016_J
: 195 : 2016 : 02/02/2016 : BAIL APPLICATION : Hon'able Mr/Mrs Justice P S TEJI J
Petitioner/Plaintiff Name : DHARAM SINGH Respondent/Defendent Name : THE STATE OF NCT (DELHI)
Petitioner/Plaintiff's Adv : RAVINDER YADAV &. ANOTHER
Respondent/Defendent'Adv : MEENAKSHI CHAUHAN Print Date
Company Name 04-01-2017 DATASOFT COMPUTER SERVICES
2016:DHC:8379 CAUSE TITLE.., NAME OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
INDEX SHEET
H.C.D.0.A.-2 iw/ti. OF 200
VERSUS
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS LTiis-i^e f$ (it for ransiBraneirtand that no proceedinBs Bra pending ?ither (n High Coisl of Delhi or in thtSupreme Court
Bf India, \ti torms of rules as provided litCh-BIC) of the High
-—Court Bultc &Orders Vol V, a; nc cornmunicotinn htabeen received inthisrespect.
^ itIs also certified that ell the relevant papers including office noting pertiinmq to pavmantj and return of fHR/Ranl, ff.nr.nt, orother tomsnts hava bee1? romoued from Part 'B' and have been plac^ at the eni^Part 'A'.
,n'r^(5 !ib<iiiny Asslsi^ !.D. No As-;;t?nt Rrgistrar leivilllDy. Bcgistrnr^pp.)
KL.
PART A & B AMOUNT OF COURT FEE PAID \ $^64 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 195/2016
DHARAM SINGH
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder Yadav, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
THDE STATE OF NCT (DELHI)
Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with
Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
27.01.2016 CrI.
M.A. No.1405/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of Bail Appl. No. 195/2016
By this petition filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.301/2015 under Section
420/448/468/471/120B of IPC, at Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi.
Notice.
Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice of the petition on behalf of the State and seeks time to file status report. Let the same be filed before the next date ofhearing.
Renotify on 15'*^ February 2016. p.s\tej4, j V JANUARY 27,2016 ,. fc pkb
^7: •
(/6\. /J'•/ •>/ / ^
, a $-74 HIGH COURT OF DELHI Crl.M.A. No. 1877/2016 in BAIL APPLN. 195/2016
DHARAM SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr.Ravinder Yadav, Adv. with Mr.Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
. .. the state of NCT ( DELHI) Respondent
• Through Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
02.02.2016 Crl.M.A. No.1877/2016 (forwithdrawlof petition)
The present application has been filed by the petitioner for withdrawal ofthe petition with liberty to approach the Trial Court for grant ofbail, as the chargesheet has been filed.
For the reasons stated, the application is allowed.
BAIL APPLN. 195/2016
In view of Crl.M.A. No.1877/2016 for withdrawal of petition having been allowed today, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for grant of bail.
Dasti.
FEBRUARY 02, 2016 aa Dis pOS HIGH COURT OF DELHI
No. /Crl Dated: ^ 3 ^ 02- ./< rom To The Registrar General, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. j^ vfo 0 Coca.nJ^j^ k(' J < CLa^^\^xsi3
"T\ ^ 0/ /2()i7^ S^ 6^.A; -y^A-VO' j 5 Petition under Section 438/439/482 of Code of Crl. Procedure for grant of a-fttkipiitory/reguhir bail in case relating to FIR No. 'l^o\ I under section l/);)-o/tj ly g
IPC, registered at Police Station Jlj) . \ , ^ 1 , i
VERSUS
etitioner STATl^: .Respondent Sir, I am directed to forward herewith immediate compliance/necessary action a copy of order
C^'l-V' .-20i3passed in the above mentioned petition by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S '' of this Court.
^ The Hon'ble Court while disposing of the case has directed that
JUDGMENT