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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Rahul @ Ganni - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1252 of 2020
Decided On : 24-06-2020




The court allows interim bail based on the medical emergency of the petitioner's brother and the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing the balance of factors without delving into case merits.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 307, 120B, 109, 114, 115 - Arms Act - Interim bail application - Petitioner seeks interim bail citing brother's medical condition requiring surgery - No direct involvement established; only indirect role ascribed under 120B IPC and witness declined to identify petitioner - Medical condition verified by State's counsel and no adverse report during previous bail - Court grants interim bail for three weeks, subject to specific conditions. (Paras 2-8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner seeks interim bail in FIR No.566/2018 due to brother's urgent medical needs for surgery; accused also claims no direct role in the alleged crimes.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner could be released on bail based on medical grounds, considering the circumstances without adjudicating on the case's merits.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner should receive interim bail considering the medical emergency and lack of direct evidence against him.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized granting bail based on medical necessity and the balance of factors while noting that it will not examine merits at this stage.

Result: Petition granted for interim bail.

Table of Content
1. release on bail due to medical condition (Para 2 , 4)
2. arguments on witness identification and evidence (Para 3 , 6)
3. conditions for interim bail (Para 7)
4. order granting bail (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks interim bail for a period of six weeks in FIR No.566/2018, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar under Sections 302/307/120B/109/114/115 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act on the ground of medical condition of his brother.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct role ascribed to the petitioner and petitioner is sought to be roped in by applying Section 120B of the IPC. Learned counsel submits that there is no eye witness to the role ascribed to the petitioner and the only witness on whose statement petitioner was sought to be roped in has already declined to identify the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the brother of the petitioner has to undergo surgery for removal of stone calculus from his kidney. The doctors have advised for arrangement for two units of blood for the surgery.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier also released on interim bail on 30.12.2019 and had duly surrendered after the period was over.

6. Mr. Farooqi, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the medical condition and the necessity of surgery has been verified. He also confirms that there is no other male family member in the family to take care of the brother of the petitioner during and immediately after the surgery. Mr. Farooqi submits that as per his instructions, there is no adverse report for the period when petitioner was earlier released on interim bail. He, however, submits that even though one of the witnesses has failed to identify the petitioner, there are other materials available against the petitioner on record.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances and also the medical condition of the brother of the petitioner, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Superintendent Jail, petitioner shall be released on interim bail for a period of three weeks from the date of his release, subject to the conditions that:

(i) petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses; and

(ii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; and

(iii) Petitioner shall provide his as well as his surety's mobile number to the IO which shall be kept active during the said period; and

(iv) petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Superintendent Jail on the expiry of the period of three weeks from the date of his release.

8. Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

9. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsel for the Parties and the concerned Superintendent Jail through email.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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