State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Vindo Kumar
2015 Latest Caselaw 1164 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Decision: February 09, 2015

+ (i) CRL.M.C. 479/2015
      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)              ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for State

                           versus

      VINOD KUMAR                                          ..... Respondent
                           Through:       Nemo

+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 482/2015
      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)              ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for State

                           versus

      RADHEY @ RAJ DEV                                     ..... Respondent
                   Through:               Nemo

+ (iii) CRL.M.C. 484/2015
      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)              ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional
                             Public Prosecutor for State
                    versus

      GYANENDER SINGH                                      ..... Respondent
                  Through:                Nemo

+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 492/2015
      STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                         ..... Petitioner


Crl.M.C.Nos.479, 482, 484 & 492 of 2015                                Page 1
                            Through:        Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional
                                           Public Prosecutor for State

                           versus

      KAMAL                                                  ..... Respondent
                                    Through:    Nemo

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           ORDER

% ORAL

In the above-captioned four petitions, cancellation of bail granted to respondent-accused in FIR No.539/2014 under Section 365/342/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Burari, Delhi is sought on identical grounds, so these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner-State submits that offence committed by respondents-accused infact comes within the ambit of Section 364A IPC, which is a serious offence and so, grant of bail to respondents-accused after they have remained in custody for few weeks is not justified. During the course of hearing, attention of this Court was drawn to the FIR of this case, to highlight gravity of offence committed by respondents-accused.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, FIR of this case and material on record, I find that it is not the case of petitioner-State that antecedents of respondents-accused are not good. Attention of this Court was not drawn to the status report filed by petitioner-State before the

Crl.M.C.Nos.479, 482, 484 & 492 of 2015 Page 2 Sessions Court. On a bare perusal of FIR of this case, it cannot be said that the offence committed comes within the ambit of Section 364A IPC. During the course of investigation, if any material comes on record to justify adding of Section 364A IPC, then respondents-accused shall not have the benefit of impugned order.

These petitions are dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case.

With aforesaid directions, these petitions are disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 09, 2015 vn

Crl.M.C.Nos.479, 482, 484 & 492 of 2015 Page 3