Vinod Kumar vs State

$~
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     BAIL APPLN. 1822/2017
                             Order reserved on 12th October, 2017
                          Order pronounced on 25th, October, 2017

      VINOD KUMAR                                        .....Petitioner
              Through:          Mr. Vishal Raj Sehipal, Advocate.
                                  Versus
      STATE                                ....Respondent
                   Through:     Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1.    The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for
      seeking interim bail for a period of 30 days in case FIR No.
      225/2013 under section 302/323/201/34 IPC registered at Police
      Station - Samaipur Badli.
2.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in
      judicial custody since 09.05.2013 and out of 33 witnesses, all the
      material witnesses have been examined including the complainant
      PW-7 Jasbir Singh; that the family of the petitioner is facing severe
      financial crunch specially children (one daughter and one son),
      whose studies are being hampered due to non-deposit of fee; that
      vide order dated 10.07.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner
      was granted 30 days interim bail for arrangement of financial help
      to his family; that petitioner never misused the liberty of bail
      granted to him earlier and surrendered on time except on one
      occasion as he had to fulfil all formalities of educational loan
      applied for his children; that petitioner is sole bread earner of his


BAIL APPLN. 1822/2017                                         Page 1 of 2
       family and he wants to dispose of his property at Chattisgarh to
      meet all daily needs and education expenses of his children.
3.    Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail of the
      petitioner and prays that looking to the criminal delinquency
      attributed to the petitioner and his previous conduct, he is not at all
      entitled to be enlarged on interim bail.
4.    I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
      material available on record.
5.    The petitioner is booked for offence punishable under Section 302
      IPC. Undisputedly, vide order dated 10.07.2017, the petitioner had
      been granted 30 days interim bail to arrange financial aid for his
      family and he jumped the said liberty and surrendered after 4-5
      days of expiry of the bail period. Petitioner had also moved an
      application for extension of bail period on similar ground as raised
      in the present application, which was dismissed vide order dated
      04.08.2017.
6.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the nature and
      gravity of the offence involved in the present case, I do not find it
      appropriate to allow the present application.
7.    The present application is dismissed.


                                      SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

OCTOBER 25, 2017 gr BAIL APPLN. 1822/2017 Page 2 of 2