Full Text
Date Of Decision Case Type Decided By BAIL APPLN,_2357_2015_J
: 2357 : 2015 : 01/02/2016 : BAIL APPLICATION
: Hon'able Mr/Mrs Justice PRATTBHA RANI J Petitioner/Plaintiff Name : RASH BEHARICHAKRABORTY
Respondent/Defendent Name : STATE (NOT OF DELHI)
Petitioner/Plaintiff's Adv : KUNWAR SINGH Respondent/Defendant'Adv : KEWAL SINGH AHUJA
Print Date Company Name : 22-07-2017 : DATASOFT COMPUTER SERVICES
2016:DHC:8376 CAUSE TITLE- NAME OF THE PARTIES
SI
No.
H.C.D.0.A.-2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI SHEET CL.ftbvqW:3!^
13:
T.bi? fit for conpfrsi'-TisTTit rxnk p?Oi~PMO!rrijei-i ti'</ v'i It! iTc tui,5«tijjsa € ••
» in o-f Rules asi pitrsp-.; in Ch-3!C5 or ths Couti &
OrdersA^cFV, UF'.-.-ng Ass E i.ki A.O.J E. ^^o...L.
Ofejjuty RegistraifA\3£!Stas|s:^=g[^^i^i PART A & B
AMOUNT
OF
COURT FEE
PAID.OF 20' PAGE 1^1
^—p m
$-35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 2357/2015
RASH BEHARI CHAKRABORTY Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State
30.10.2015 Crl. M.A.15869/2015 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.297/2011 (PS
Hari Nagar) instituted for offences under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B ofthe IPC Act. The allegation in the FIR is that Govt. funds were embezzled by the petitioner who worked as a dealing assistant, and other co- accused persons.
It has been alleged that many bills which were raised for thepurposes of measuring toxicity of a particular drug were paid. Such bills were prepared by the petitioner in the capacity of a dealing assistant. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the money which was transacted
/ was received by the petitioner also Issue notice. Mr. M.P. Singh, APP accepts notice.
Status report be filed on orbefore thenextdate fixed.
The status report would include the stage of the investigation and the period ofcustody ofthe petitioner.
Renotify on 14.1.2016.
OCTOBER 30,2015 ns ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OVtK^ry. ^WU" oJvt.Ovg.1
$-20^ RASH BEHARI CHAKRABORTY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kunwar Singh and Mr.Gurjoy Sethi, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Kewal SinghAhuja, APP for the State with SI Mohit Parkash, PS Hari
Nagar.
14.01.2016
ORDER
1. Learned APP for the State seeks more time to file the status report.
2. At request, re-notify for February, 2016. Status report be filed by the State before that date.
JPRATIBHA RANI, J. JANUARY 14,2016 'st'K^ If I I tPC.. /n 12 $-22 & 23 + BAIL APPLN. 2146/2015 BINOD KUMAR DAS Petitioner Through: Mr.Vimal Puggal, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APPfor the State with SI Mohit Prakash, PS Hari Nagar.
VERSUS
JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER % 01.02.2016
1. These two bail applications have been filed by the petitioners Binod Kumar Das and Rash Behari Chakraborty seeking regular bail in case FIR No.297/2011 under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPG, PS Hari Nagar, Delhi.
2. On behalf ofpetitioners, it has been submitted that in this case the petitioners are in judicial custody since the date oftheir arrest i.e. petitioner Binod Kumar Jha is in custody since 23.03.2014 and petitioner Rash Behari Chakraborty is in custody since 20.03.2013 and till date even charge has not BailAppln. Nos.2146 &2357 of2015 been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the chargesheet placed on record and submitted that while filing the chargesheet it was mentioned that further investigation is continuing and due to that reason the trial is not progressing and position as on date is that stage for consideration of charge is yet to reach even after two years of filing of the chargesheet in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners pray for grant of bail to the petitioners.
3. This Court when asked about the proceedings going on before the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed on record the copy of the proceedings dated 08.12.2015 and 21.01.2016 perusal of which reveals that vide order dated 08.12.2015 the learned Trial Court issued Court Notice against ACP concerned, SHO PS Hari Nagar as well as against the Investigating Officer. Vide order dated 21.01.2016 the learned Trial Court issued bailable warrants in the sum of ?10,000/- against the 10 SI Mohit Prakash for 15"^ February, 2016.
4. On behalf of State, it has been submitted that earlier in this case FSL result was awaited. The FSL result has been received and also filed in the Trial Court about two months back. Learned APP for the State has further submitted that the mere fact that further investigation in the matter is continuing, would not be made a ground by the State to seek adjournment before the learned Trial Court.
5. Learned APP for the State has further submitted that the matter is listed before the learned Trial for 15"" February, 2016 (Rehnumai for 4"" February, 2015) for which date the learned Trial Court has issued bailable warrants against 10 SIMohit Prakash, who ispresent today.
6. Since chargesheet has already been submitted against the petitioners. BailAppln. Nos.2146 &2357 of2015 Page 2of[3] who have spent considerable time in judicial custody, FSL result has also been received, learned APP for the State has assured this Court that there would not be any further delay in the commencement of the trial as 10 SI Mohit Prakash, who is present today in the Court, willremain present before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the arguments on charge can be heard by learned Trial Court on the date already fixed or to be fixed shortlythereafter by the learnedTrial Court.
7. In view ofthe above assurance given by learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they will prefer to argue before the learnedTrial Court as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners or not and to seek relief of bail, if necessity arises, after the matter is heard on charge.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek leave to withdraw the bail applications.
9. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
10. The learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that there is no further unnecessarydelay in hearing the parties for considerationof charge.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information and compliance. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
FEBRUARY 01, 2016 'sf o P^niBBt^^TCNirX BailAppln. Nos.2146 &2357 of2015 Page 2of[3] •Date bound case for..rr Out today Most urgent /' IN THEHlCitia COURT OF DELHI AT NEW JDELHI ' -^NV-Cri. Qated X'Q From: The Registrar Freneral, HF^h Court of Delhi, New Delhi. 5 mJ) cUy:xJ-\ ^ To, '\a-^.W.tl.:.^, BAlMfiPLlCATION NO. '. OckYU -e-ei^ It ' VER.SUS i'.].-'etiLi.'---o-cr Rc.;?):-un.deiTt Petition under ST.Gho'n -^148/439/4-8?" Cr, - P-C..[8] Police Station FJ.R. No. j-lX.,; i..... Sir, • ', In continuation of this Courtis tetter No.• dated. I.^ra dir-ected to fovvVard'herewith -for iminedia.te.co.inptiance/necessary actio..n a copy of •iuc^men:.''o.i:der. dc. (...|..!T^A.|....^:r^ passed in the abcve cb..sc.Iloublc iv^ Justice.b.W^....(?N2AtvA oftliis coiu't. The Court, 'w.bile.issuing notices/adjournmg the case •- The Lower Cotufs records as detailed belcw are seirt herewith. - ' Yours faitlTfu.Uy,. • Encl: Cc.>py oforder.dt and meriio o:l <=4&s«48^ Admn. yScer Jud.l.(Crl.),. for.Regisliar General.fi K i. m