Satpal vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 80 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of first hearing on 14th July, 2004 this Court had granted interim protection and had directed the petitioner to join investigation as and when required. On several dates the petitioner sought to join investigation. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was prevented from doing so despite specific orders of this Court. He further submits that the accused/petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and one very important circumstance according to him is that the witnesses have come up with the story after seven or eight days of the incident and on the date of the incident they have not made any such statement. On behalf of the State, it was submitted, in reply to this, that it is the Guru who had been injured so that the witnesses could not say anything unless the Guru gave them permission. This is, prima facie, an unsatisfactory answer.

2. In these circumstances, the petitioner be released in the event of his arrest on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer., The petitioner shall join investigation and the State shall permit him to join investigation. The petitioner shall not attempt at influencing the witnesses in any manner whatsoever.