Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Kasongo Abimael - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 645 of 2020
Decided On : 06-02-2020
CRL. M.A. 2693/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 645/2020
3. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - 03, District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Misc. No. 04/2020, FIR No. 311/2019 registered at Police Station - Maidan Garhi for the offence punishable under Section 14 of Foreigners Act 1946.
4. In impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that petitioner/accused is a foreign national, who was booked under Section 14 Foreigners Act for overstaying in India without valid visa and he was granted bail vide order dated 13.01.2020 on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. If petitioner is allowed to be released on bail merely on personal bond or on deposit of cash amount in lieu of surety, there are scant chances of his being traced out or apprehended in case, he jumps bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he produced surety Aditya Talwar with FDR of Rs.50,000/- in his name with AADHAAR Card. However, surety was not accepted by the Court below.
6. Since sufficient conditions have already been imposed in bail order dated 13.01.2020, therefore, there is no occasion before the trial Court for not accepting the surety produced by the petitioner.
7. Learned APP, on instructions from SI Kishan Pal/IO of the case, submits that the surety named above is staying with his mother at the given address.
8. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to admit the petitioner on bail on furnishing surety of the aforesaid person without further delay. The remaining terms and conditions of the bail shall remain intact.
9. The trial Court is directed to make endorsement on FDR which is to be produced by surety and intimation to the Bank authorities concerned shall be sent stating that the said FDR shall not be encashed without permission of the trial Court.
10. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
