Puneet Rana v. State

$~ 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN No.989/2020 PUNEET RANA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Sumit Choudhary, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with Inspector Ramavtar, PS Kanjhawala Mr.Arvind Rana, Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

O R D E R

% 03.06.2020 Pursuant to the proceedings dated 29.5.2020, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has made alternative arrangements to reside at a distance of 10 kms from the house of the complainant. This factum as submitted on behalf of the State by the learned APP for the State is stated to have been verified and the status report in relation thereto has just been e-mailed to the Court by the learned APP for the State under the signatures of Inspector Ramavtar, SHO, Police Station Kanjhawala, submitting to the effect that the co-accused Ms.Santosh W/o Naresh Kumar (the mother of the petitioner) has been given one room on rent for a period of two months at property bearing No. B-10-A, Aarey Wali Gali, Gali No.5, Vijay Nagar Colony, Bawana, Delhi by the owner Sh.

Darshan Singh, a resident of the said place.

It has been further reported to the effect that the said room was found locked and no one is residing in the said room. The complainant of the case has also joined the proceedings through video conferencing. He submits that there are threats meted out that have intermittently been given on behalf of the petitioner and the other coaccused persons and apart from the petitioner there are other family members of the petitioner who can look after the petitioner's mother. The applicant vide the present application has sought the grant of interim bail so that the petitioner's mother is operated upon for a knee surgery submitting inter alia to the effect that the father of the petitioner is a senior citizen and not in a position to look after the applicant's mother.

The prayer of the applicant is that he needs to be released on bail to enable him to assist in the surgery of his mother. The status report has been submitted on behalf of the State indicating the operation to be performed on the mother of the petitioner is a major operation and it would need seven days' of admission, though it is stated that this is an elective surgery with no emergency, taking into account however the factum that the operation is a major operation and that there was no one who has accompanied Smt. Santosh to the doctor on 6.5.2020 and 18.05.

teacher with one sister and two brothers of the petitioner residing in Delhi and Haryana, in the interest of justice as the petitioner's mother would be needing the presence of the petitioner for the performance of the surgery upon his mother, the petitioner is allowed to be released on interim bail for a period of 10 days from the date of his release on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent with the directions that he shall make no contact with the complainant and the witnesses of the prosecution.

The SHO PS Kanjhawala is further directed to ensure that adequate security is provided to the witnesses of the prosecution and the complainant and the complainant and the witnesses of the prosecution are provided the mobile numbers of the beat constables of the area where they live. Furthermore, it is specifically directed that the petitioner shall keep his mobile on at all times and shall also contact the Investigating Officer of the case every third day during the period he is on interim bail. It is also made specifically clear that the interim bail has been granted only for the performance of the surgery upon the mother of the petitioner and not qua the post operative care, and the prayer for release in relation thereto is specifically declined.

The application is disposed of.

ANU MALHOTRA, J JUNE 3, 2020 sv