Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar vs The State (Govt.Of N.C.T Of Delhi) on 4 July, 2018
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.07.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 507/2018
PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (GOVT.OF N.C.T OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Naveen
Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa and Mr. Aditya Swarup
Agarwal, Advs. for complainant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
04.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 32/2018 under
Sections 195A/34 of the IPC, Police Station Sabji Mandi, Delhi. The
petitioner has been in custody since 24.01.2018.
2. The allegations in the subject FIR against the petitioner are that
the petitioner along with co-accused who are also accused in FIR No.
485/2014 under Sections 307/326/325/506 and Section 25 of the Arms
Act had threatened and assaulted the complainant on 24.01.2018 when
he had gone to Court to depose as a witness in the said FIR No.
485/2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated and the subject allegations have been
labelled solely for the purpose of seeking cancellation of bail granted
in FIR No. 485/2014.
4. Learned Addl. PP informs that in the present FIR investigation
is complete and the chargesheet has already been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that
consequent to a complaint made by the complainant the bail granted
in FIR No. 485/2014 has been cancelled vide order dated 05.06.2018.
6. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for complainant
that in case bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would
threaten the complainant who has to appear as a witness in FIR No.
485/2014 is now redressed by order dated 05.06.2018 wherein the bail
of the petitioner has been cancelled in the said FIR No. 485/2014.
7. In the present FIR, investigation has been complete and the
chargesheet has been filed and the allegations have to be proved by
leading evidence, I am of the view that no further purpose would be
served in keeping the petitioner in custody in the present FIR.
8. Without commenting of the merits of the case and keeping in
view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and on
perusal of the records, I am of the view that the petitioner has made
out a case for grant of bail.
9. Subject to petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- alongwith a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required
in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may
either prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
July 04, 2018
'rs'
