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

1986 Supreme(Raj) 321

DWARKA PRASAD GUPTA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bearue of Investigation – Respondent


For the Petitioner:Dinesh Swami and B.K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.P. Tyagi, Public Prosecutor on behalf of C.B.I.

JUDGMENT

1. - I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the CBI.

2. As the petitioners have already given an under-taking, the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur should not have directed, the petitioners to give any further undertaking and should not have made the furnishing of undertaking as a condition for granting bail. The learned Judge has already noticed the fact in his order dated October 24, 1985 that the petitioners have produced an undertaking, which may be kept on record.

3. The order passed by the learned Special Judge dated October 24, 1985 is modified to the extent that the condition of furnishing an undertaking as deleted. The bail shall be considered to have been granted to the petitioners on each one of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing a surety in the like amount.

4. The application Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is disposed of accordingly.Order accordingly.

*******

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top