Bhupinder Singh @ Bablu vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2008 Latest Caselaw 1530 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                Bail Appl. No.1654/2008

%                            Date of Decision: 03.09.2008

Bhupinder Singh @ Bablu                                     .... Petitioner

                           Through Mr.Suresh Sisodia, Advocate

                                       Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)                                        .... Respondent

                           Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State.

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.

*

1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that though he was appearing

in the matter and he was on bail, on account of the alleged condition of

his wife, he could not appear during the trial and was declared as a

proclaimed offender. According to the petitioner, the judgment has

been given in the case of other co-accused and they have been acquitted

and therefore, present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Learned counsel for the State has strongly objected and contested

the petition. It is contended that though the other accused had been

acquitted, however, the petitioner jumped the bail leading to issuance of

non bailable warrant against him and the petitioner was declared as a

proclaimed offender. The order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed

offender has not been challenged by him. Learned counsel for the State

has also pointed out in the judgment in detail the testimony of

witnesses which show that the petitioner was pillion riding on the

scooter and he had put a Katta (local gun) to the temple of the

complainant.

3. Considering the facts and in totality of circumstances, therefore,

it is not a fit case to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The

petitioner was granted bail and he jumped the bail and he has already

been declared a proclaimed offender. Consequently the application of

the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code is without any merit and it is dismissed.

September 03, 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J.

'akn'