Ravinder @ Rabbu v. Stae Of NCT Of Delhi

$~30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 110/2016 RAVINDER @ RABBU ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr.Jitender Tyagi, Advocate with Ms.Ananya Roy, Mr.Sandeep Tomar & Ms.Sugandha Bhatia, Advocates.

versus STAE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

O R D E R

% 16.02.2016 1.

The petitioner seeks interim bail for two months from the date of release to enable him to arrange funds and to take care of his father who is suffering from cerebellar ataxia since 1990 and has 70% disability. Recently, he has developed large hernia. He is also suffering from praostatic hypertrophy with significant resudul urine and has been advised surgery. Status report is on record. 2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 689/2015 registered under Sections 302/307/147-149/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/27/54 Arms Act at PS Mehrauli. There are serious allegations against him whereby he along with his associates BAIL APPLN. 110/2016

committed murder of one Surender @ Sonu while attempting to murder Sandeep by firing at them. Status report reveals that the petitioner has three sisters and two of them are married. Apparently, there are other family members including brothers-in-law of the petitioner to take care of his father. Documents placed on record reveal that the petitioner's father is already taking necessary treatment at a private hospital. Status report further reveals that the petitioner's father was admitted at Mehta Hospital on 06.01.2016 and was discharged on 08.01.2016. He could not be operated as he did not give consent for surgery for reasons known to him. 3.

It is relevant to note that co-accused Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Dsilva and Kartik have also sought interim bail on medical grounds. The case is still at its initial stage and the statements of the material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded. Possibility of the evidence to be tempered with cannot be ruled out. 4.

No sufficient ground for grant of interim bail. Request of the petitioner to be present in custody at the time of surgery would be considered favourably.

5.

The bail application stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG, J FEBRUARY 16, 2016 / tr BAIL APPLN. 110/2016