Delhi High Court
Rinku Das vs State Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Anr. on 17 January, 2018
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 241/2018
RINKU DAS ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Nanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for State.
SI Jitendra Kumar, PS Govindpuri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
17.01.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 934/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 241/2018
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.09.2017, whereby,
respondent No.2 has been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that there was no ground made out for grant of bail
and more so in view of the fact that the earlier application for grant of
bail by the respondent No.2 had been rejected and there was no
change in circumstances.
2. Further, it is contended that in the impugned order, the Court
has commented upon the injury sustained by the petitioner without
referring to the medical report and also ignoring the fact that the
doctor, who had examined the petitioner, is yet to be examined as a
witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this
observation is likely to prejudice the final outcome of the trial.
3. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and
cancel the bail already granted.
4. It is settled position that an order granting bail is not to be
inferred with lightly, unless certain compelling circumstances are
shown requiring cancellation of bail. Merely because an earlier
application has been rejected does not preclude the accused from
filing a subsequent application for bail, in case, the circumstances so
warrant. In the earlier application, the Court has opined that one of
the formal witnesses is yet to be examined. The application for grant
of bail, in the present instance, was filed after the said witness was
examined. No circumstances are shown warranting interference with
the order dated 22.09.2017 enlarging Respondent No. 2 on Bail.
5. Insofar as the observation of the Court with regard to the injury
sustained by the victim is concerned, it is noticed that as the doctor,
who had examined the victim, is yet to be examined, the observation
commenting upon the injury sustained was not necessary.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.09.2017. However, it is
clarified that the observation made by the Court in the impugned order
with regard to the injury sustained will not be taken as conclusive.
7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 17, 2018
st
