S.MURALIDHAR, I.S.MEHTA
Yogesh Mittal – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J.—This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a declaration that the continued detention of the Petitioner in FIR No. 205/2016 by denying him the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr PC”) and without formal cognizance taken of the offence committed by him in the said FIR is illegal, warranting his release from custody as far as the said FIR is concerned.
Background facts
2. The background facts are that the aforementioned FIR No.205/2016, dated 25th December 2016 was registered with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police under Section 420/406/409/467/468/471/188/120 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). In the said FIR, after conclusion of the investigation, a final report No.1 dated 24th June 2017 was filed, alleging different offences against different accused persons who were named in Column 11 of the said final report. The name of Petitioner, Yogesh Mittal, did not figure in Column 11 of the final report. However, in para 79 of the said report, it was stated as under:—
“Further investigation is in progress. FSL Report is awaited. If more evidence comes on record against the above accused, s
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141. (Para 7)
Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 440. (Para 20)
Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh (2011) 6 SCC 102: (2011) 3 Supreme 720. (Para 20)
Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi AIR 1953 SC 277. (Para 25.1)
Darshan Singh Ram Krishan v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 2 SCC 654. (Para 27.10)
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62. (Para 28)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.