R. Shekhar @ Gunnu vs State
2018 Latest Caselaw 6880 Del

$~13

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Judgment delivered on:19.11.2018
+      BAIL APPLN. 2222/2018
       R. SHEKHAR @ GUNNU                                  ..... Petitioner
                            versus

       STATE                                               ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Mr. Prashant Mehta with Ms.
                            Vasundhra Bhardwaj, Advocates.

For the Respondent   :      Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
                            SI Sandeep Kumar, PS Ambedkar
                            Nagar.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                               JUDGMENT

19.11.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks interim bail for 30 days in FIR No.197/2017 under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on the ground of medical help required by the father of the petitioner, who has undergone a bypass surgery.

2. Learned APP for the State, under instructions, submits that the bypass surgery happened in May 2018 and over 6 months have passed and father is on the road to recovery. He submits that as per the

inquiry, there is no urgent medical treatment required expect regular follow-up, which may continue for a long period of time. Further, it is submitted that two of the eyewitnesses, who were examined before the Trial Court, had made a complaint to the Magistrate that when they were coming out of court after deposition, they were threatened by the family members of the petitioner. The SHO had been directed by the Trial Court to afford necessary protection to the eyewitnesses.

3. Keeping in view of the fact that there is no urgent medical treatment required by the father of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner at this stage.

4. In view of the above, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the allegations of the witnesses that the family members of the petitioner had threatened them and the application has been rejected solely on the ground that there is no urgent treatment required at this stage.

6. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

NOVEMBER 19, 2018                            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st