Delhi High Court
Romesh Sahu @ Romesh Vishwanath vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 February, 2016
#33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.02.2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 204/2016 and Crl. MA No. 1499/2016 (Exemption)
ROMESH SAHU @ ROMESH VISHWANATH ..... Applicant
Through Mr. R.K. Tarun, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
SI A.K. Singh, P.S. EOW
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail in FIR No. 114/2009 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC
registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the official
respondent.
4. At the outset, it is noticed that the applicant has been in judicial
custody since 17th February, 2015 and that the charge-sheet in the subject
FIR has been filed. However, the charges are yet to be framed against the
applicant herein.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has invited my
attention to the order dated 18th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Bail Application No.
1509/2015 titled State vs. Debashish Biswal relating to the subject FIR
whereby Debashish Biswal, the co-accused of the applicant herein has been
enlarged on bail.
6. A perusal of the said order dated 18th April, 2015 reveals that the
liability of the said co-accused Debashish Biswal is stated to be in the sum of
Rs. 6,32,000/- out of which the latter has already paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs
and has undertaken to clear the balance liability of RS. 3,32,000/- lakhs
within two months from the date of his release.
7. In view of the foregoing, it is urged on behalf of the applicant that he
is entitled to parity since he is also willing to deposit the amount purportedly
embezzled by him, if granted time and the facility of deferred payment.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that in
order to establish his bona fides, the applicant is willing to pay a sum of
Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant in the subject FIR within a period of two days
from today. The undertaking made on behalf of the applicant is hereby
accepted.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
seeks leave to withdraw the present bail application with liberty to approach
the trial Court in this behalf.
10. Leave and liberty granted.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present bail application is disposed of
with a direction to the Trial Court to consider an application for regular bail,
if filed, afresh in the light of what has been urged on behalf of the applicant
without being influenced by any observations made by this Court on the
prior occasion as contained in the order dated 18th September, 2015 in Bail
Application No. 1881/2015.
12. The present bail application is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of
accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of.
13. Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
SD
