Delhi High Court
Rakhee Sen vs State on 27 February, 2019
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.02.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 447/2019
RAKHEE SEN ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajiv Mohan, Mr.Abhimanyu Kampani, Mr.Tejasva
Mehra, Mr.M.A.Karthik and Mr.Samarth Theotia, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 99/2018 under Sections
174A of the IPC, Police Station Chitranjan Park, Delhi.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner failed to
appear before the trial court after having been enlarged on bail in a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
Trial Court noticed that petitioner had been declared a proclaimed
offender not only in the subject case but in three other cases and
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were pending against the
petitioner in respect of two other cases and non bailable warrants were
issued against the petitioner in one case. FIR under section 174A IPC
has been registered in 3 cases.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject
offences for which the petitioner has been charged were bailable
offences and the petitioner could not appear in the proceedings as
there was a lack of communication from her lawyers about the dates
of hearing and the procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
single woman having two minor children both of whom are studying
in Pathways World School, Noida and she is a permanent resident of
Noida, the address of which has been mentioned in the memo of
parties.
5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner undertakes to
appear in all the seven matters as and when the proceedings are listed.
He further submits that petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in
two other cases in which FIR under Section 174A IPC has been
registered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since
petitioner has been incarcerated since 29.12.2018, her children have
not been able to attend school and are residing with a family friend.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that petitioner is a single woman and her two minor children are
registered in a school in Noida, I am of the view that petitioner has
made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall
be released on bail, if not required in any other case. Petitioner shall
not do anything which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution
witnesses. The undertaking of the petitioner that she shall appear in all
the proceedings is accepted. Petitioner shall intimate the Trial Court
of any change in her residential address.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
rk
