SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Vikramjeet Singh @ Vicky @ Tannu – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. & Ors. – Respondents
Bail Appln. 413 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Navneet Dogra, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State Ms. Ankita Wilson, Advocate for R-2.

The court has the discretion to grant interim bail based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the fact of the marriage in the close family.

Headnote:

Interim Bail - Marriage in Close Family - The court granted interim bail to the petitioner for 10 days due to the marriage in the close family, subject to specific conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought interim bail for 10 days due to his marriage in the close family.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted the petitioner interim bail for 10 days, subject to specific conditions, considering the fact of the marriage in the close family.

Issues: Interim bail application, opposition by the State, concern of the complainant regarding the petitioner absconding.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fact of the marriage in the close family, previous grant of interim bail, and the concerns raised by the State and the complainant.

Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner interim bail for 10 days, subject to specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application seeking interim bail in case FIR No. 699/2016 registered at PS Govindpuri under Section 323/376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO. The interim bail is sought on behalf of the petitioner for 10 days on the ground of marriage in the close family from 08.02.2023 to 10.02.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted interim bail twice and the liberty was not misused by him.

3. Learned APP for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the marriage ceremony is of the cousin sister.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the probability of the petitioner absconding is very high and therefore, the petitioner may not be released on bail.

5. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The factum of the marriage in close family of the petitioner has already been verified by the learned Trial Court.

6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner be admitted to bail for 10 days i.e. till 17.02.2023 on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court subject to the following conditions:

a) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

b) the petitioner shall provide his/her mobile number(s) to the Police In charge of the case and keep it operational at all times;

c) the petitioner shall drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that his location is available to the Police In charge; and

d) in case of a change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

7. In the above terms, the application stands disposed of

8. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.

9. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top