Raj Kumar Sharma vs State Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 2319 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Bail Application No.2590/2008

%                      Date of Decision: 24.12.2008

Raj Kumar Sharma                                  .... Petitioner
                      Through Mr.K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with
                              Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate

                                Versus

State of Delhi                                     .... Respondent
                      Through Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP for the State along
                              with Inspector Rajesh Kumar, P.S. New
                              Ashok Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                 YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner seeks interim bail on the ground that his wife is

suffering from a number of ailments including heart ailments, seizure

disorder, sever blood sugar, metabolic syndrome and angina.

The petitioner contended that he was granted interim bail on

account of the aforesaid ailments of his wife on 15th October, 2008 for

two weeks which was further extended for two weeks pursuant to the

order passed in Bail Application No.2029/2008. The petitioner had

filed yet another Bail Application No.2440/2008 for interim bail for

enabling him to get requisite medical tests of his wife conducted. On

the said application by order dated 3rd December, 2008 petitioner was

given interim bail till 15th December, 2008.

The petitioner contends that his wife continues to be ill and,

therefore, extension of interim bail was sought, however, the application

was dismissed by order dated 16th December, 2008 on the ground that

the blood sugar level of the wife of the petitioner was very high and

consequently the tests for which the petitioner was seeking interim bail

could not be conducted and therefore the petitioner had surrendered on

16th December, 2008.

The petitioner now contends that tests of his wife are fixed for

26th December, 2008. Learned counsel has further contended that

further tests are fixed for 6th January, 2009 and 9th January, 2009. It is

further stated that the petitioner has not exploited the liberty granted to

him earlier in any way.

The status report is filed on behalf of respondent. Learned APP

has drawn my attention to the cases in which the petitioner is involved.

Perusal of these cases, however, reveals that they were pending even at

the time earlier interim bail petitions were filed by the petitioner and

considered by this Court. Despite his involvement in other cases,

petitioner was released on interim bail on account of the medical

condition of his wife. Learned APP has also contended that HB A/C test

of the wife of the petitioner is not fixed for 26th December, 2008,

however, it is fixed for 6th January, 2009 and for that purpose one adult

relative is required along with the patient. Regarding the MRI tests, it

is contended that they were fixed for 5th December, 2008 and 17th

December, 2008 but the patient never reported for such tests on those

dates.

The petitioner has contended that TMT test of his wife is fixed for

26th December, 2008 and not the HB A/C tests. Rather learned counsel

for the petitioner has contended that HB A/C test is fixed for 6th

January, 2008 and another test is fixed for 9th January, 2009 and in

the circumstances interim bail is sought till 9th January, 2009.

At the instance of the counsel for the complainant, learned APP

has also relied on the alleged complaint dated 4th December, 2008 of

Shri Yashwant Kaushik, addressed to SHO, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.

Perusal of the complaint reveals that the allegations are generic without

any particulars. In any case, if the complaint against the petitioner was

received on 4th December, 2008 and since the petitioner was on interim

bail pursuant to order dated 3rd December, 2008 in Bail Application

No.2440/2008 categorically stipulating that in case it is found that the

petitioner is misusing the concession of his interim bail, then the State

would have the liberty to get this order revoked. The petitioner was on

interim bail till 16th December, 2008 and despite the specific order by

this Court, pursuant to alleged complaint dated 4th December, 2008,

the State did not seek revocation of interim bail granted to the

petitioner.

In the totality of facts and circumstances, without commenting on

the merits of the case and in view that the petitioner was earlier also

released on interim bail on account of the illness of his wife and the

petitioner has not exploited the liberty granted to him, the petitioner is

granted interim bail till 10th January, 2009 from the date of his release,

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with

one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned

court/vacation Judge.

The petitioner is directed not to temper with the evidence and not

to visit NOIDA and not to leave Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital during the

period of his interim bail. The terms and conditions imposed are the

same as were imposed while granting interim bail to the petitioner

earlier. The petitioner shall also report to the concerned police station

every day. The State shall be at liberty to seek revocation of the

interim bail of the petitioner in case the petitioner is found misusing the

concession granted to him.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the

Court Master of this Court.

December 24, 2008                                            ANIL KUMAR
'rs/Dev'                                                (Vacation Judge)