Jayant Sharma vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 957 Del

#10 & 11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Date of decision: 08.02.2016

+       BAIL APPLN. 2726/2015
        JAYANT SHARMA                                 ..... Applicant
                    Through               Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
                                          Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate along
                                          with applicant
                                versus
        STATE                                         ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State ASI Ranbir Singh, P.S. Neb Sarai Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advs. for the complainant

+ BAIL APPLN. 2727/2015 KAMAL SHARMA ..... Applicant Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate along with applicant versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State ASI Ranbir Singh, P.S. Neb Sarai Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advs. for the complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present are the applications under section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 1636/2015, under Sections 34/308 IPC, registered

at Police Station- Neb Sarai, Delhi.

2. It is an admitted position that the complainant in the subject FIR has

suffered injuries as a consequence of the alleged assault on him on behalf of

the applicants herein. However, he has since been discharged from the

concerned hospital on the same day and is convalescing at home.

3. Mr. Ravi Nayak and Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned APP appearing on

behalf of the official respondent, on instructions from ASI Ranbir Singh,

Police Station- Neb Sarai, Delhi, state that subsequent to the last order dated

17th December, 2015 passed by this Court, both the applicants herein have

joined investigation and are co-operating with it.

4. In the present case, it is also an admitted position that the applicants

herein have clean antecedents and do not have any previous involvements.

5. At this stage, there is neither any hint nor allegation that the applicants

shall not be available to stand trial or that they may attempt to tamper with

the evidence or try to influence the witnesses in the subject FIR.

6. In my view, no useful purpose shall be served by requiring the

custodial interrogation of the applicants herein.

7. In view of the foregoing, the present bail applications are allowed.

8. In the event of applicants' arrest, they shall be released on bail on their

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties

of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House

In-charge subject to the further conditions:-

(i) That they shall continue to co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for questioning to a Police Officer as and when called upon to do so.

(ii) That they shall not try and influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence in the subject FIR.

(iii) That the applicants herein shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the present case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(iv) That the applicants shall also surrender their respective Passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR, within two days from today.

7. With the above directions, the present bail applications are allowed

and disposed of accordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 08, 2016 SD