Dinesh Kumar Bhatti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
EmailAppeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2883/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-11-1998 in CRLMM703/98 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-11-1998 in CRLMM703/98 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)
Petitioner: Dinesh Kumar Bhatti
Respondent: State of NCT of Delhi
Apeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2883/1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-11-1998 in CRLMM703/98 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-11-1998 in CRLMM703/98 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)
Judges: G.B.PATTANAIK & U.C.BANERJEE,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Mr. A.P. Mukundan, Mr. Mahendra Singh and Mr. Devendra Singh, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Altaf Ahmed, ASG, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advocate for Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 464A – Bail – Offence under Section 464A – Accused petitioner in custody since 1995 – Out of 59 eye witnesses only 20 have been examined by trial court. Held it was a fit case for grant of bail. Accused petitioner accordingly ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Judge.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The accused petitioner prayed for bail while facing a charge under Section 464-A. The prayer for bail having been refused, he has approached this Court. As it appears he is in custody since 18.5.1995, out of 59 eye witnesses, only 20 have been examined so far. We have been taken through the evidence of the victim boy. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the prosecution contends that the offence is quite serious, and therefore, the accused petitioner should not be released on bail. But having considered the totality of the circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we think that a case for accused being released on bail has been made out. We, accordingly, direct that the accused petitioner Dinesh Kumar Bhatti be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, subject to the condition that the said accused Dinesh Kumar Bhatti shall report twice every week in the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
2. The SLP is disposed of accordingly.
Court Master.
1. The accused petitioner prayed for bail while facing a charge under Section 464-A. The prayer for bail having been refused, he has approached this Court. As it appears he is in custody since 18.5.1995, out of 59 eye witnesses, only 20 have been examined so far. We have been taken through the evidence of the victim boy. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the prosecution contends that the offence is quite serious, and therefore, the accused petitioner should not be released on bail. But having considered the totality of the circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we think that a case for accused being released on bail has been made out. We, accordingly, direct that the accused petitioner Dinesh Kumar Bhatti be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, subject to the condition that the said accused Dinesh Kumar Bhatti shall report twice every week in the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
2. The SLP is disposed of accordingly.
Court Master.
