Rahul Gupta vs State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
YOGESH KHANNA
Rahul Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning fir and bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding notice and bail eligibility. (Para 8 , 9)
3. judicial analysis of notification and representation in bail hearings. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court's reliance on established case law supporting the notification principle. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. final ruling: appeal dismissed. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. The appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred learned Trial Court) and to direct release of appellant on bail per Section 167 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Cr PC) read with Section 21 (2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as MCOCA) in case FIR No.397/2019 registered at police station Hari Nagar.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant says FIR No.100/2018 was registered under NDPS Act at police station Hari Nagar, Delhi and accused Salman Tyagi was arrested on 17.02.2018 and appellant/accused Rahul Gupta, was arrested on 18.04.2018 in the said FIR. The appellant was granted regular bail in such F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTYOGESH KHANNARahul Gupta – AppellantVersusState – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
YOGESH KHANNA
Rahul Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent