Vivek Mandal v. State

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 221/2020 VIVEK MANDAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr.Ram Singh, Mr.Nihal Ahmad and Mr.Kunal Yadav, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 02.03.2020 1.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail in case FIR No.118/2019, registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 12 of the P.P. Act at Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.10.2019 and the main accused is one Montu. He further submits that the petitioner has also given copy of his own passport along with the passport application forms and had he been aware, then he would not have enclosed copy of his own passport. 3.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was a part of a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of which fake Indian passports in the names of some persons were issued on the basis of fake identity documents and on the basis of such passports, U.S. visas were applied for in the name of seven persons.

4.

Looking into the facts and circumstances and the fact that the

petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2019, the petitioner is admitted to bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promises to the complainant or any witness during the trial or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The petitioner shall provide the I.O./SHO Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi with his mobile phone number and in the event of change of his residential address, shall inform the same to the I.O./SHO.

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court.

(iv) The petitioner will remain regularly present before the Trial Court.

5.

With the above directions, the application is disposed of. Crl.M.(Bail) 158/2020 (Interim Bail) In view of the order passed in Bail Application No.221/2020, the present application seeking interim bail to the petitioner does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

DASTI.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 02, 2020/'dc'