Md Yusuf vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Decision: January 12, 2015

+                   BAIL APPLN. 2669/2014
      MD YUSUF                                            ..... Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Sameer Chandra and Mr.
                                         Zuber Rajza, Advocates

                           versus

      THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                   ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
                              Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                              State with SI Vishvender Singh

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.993/2014 under Sections 365/34 registered at P.S. Seema Puri, Delhi.

Petitioner is accused of abducting and secretly confining his real daughter, who is said to have married against the wishes of petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is at bar with the case of co-accused persons, who have been already granted pre-arrest bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has placed on record the status report and submits that petitioner is required for investigation.

Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner would be BAIL APPLN. 2669/2014 Page 1 appearing before the Investigating Officer of this case on 13th January, 2015 at 4 P.M. and thereafter, as and when called by notice in writing.

Let it be so done.

Without commenting upon merits of this case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner-Md. Yusuf S/o Abdul Mannan be admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. Needless to say, if petitioner fails to join the investigation in this case, then respondent-State would be at liberty to get this order revoked.

The application is accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2015
s




BAIL APPLN. 2669/2014                                                Page 2