Hardeep v. State ( NCT Of Delhi)
$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 790/2019 HARDEEP ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.Vikram Singh Panwar, Mr. Pradeep Debey and Mr.Tarun Gaur, Advs.
versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP with IO/ACP Kulbir Singh,SubDivision Chhawla and SI Surender Singh, PS Dwarka, Sector-23, Delhi Ms. Yashima Sharma, Adv. for the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R
% 13.09.2019 1.
Learned APP for the State submitted that the respondent has already filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. 2.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the petitioner shall now apply for the regular bail before the Trial Court and prayed that the petitioner may be protected for at least a week after the decision; in case the regular bail application of the petitioner is dismissed by the Trial Court.
3.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment in the matter of K.L.Verma v. State (1998) 9 SCC 348. 4.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he shall file the regular bail application before the Trial Court immediately on the coming working day of the Trial Court. 5.
Accordingly, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the Trial Court decides the question of grant of bail and for a week thereafter, in case the Trial Court dismiss the bail application of the petitioner so that the petitioner may, if so advised, move the higher Court to avail the legal remedy, if any. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to co-operate and join the investigation as and when called by the IO/SHO in writing. Petitioner shall also not prejudice the investigation, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.
6.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the aforesaid directions he may be allowed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.
7.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the anticipatory bail application. CHANDER SHEKHAR, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2019/rk