Ashok @ Tinku v. State Of Delhi

$-13-15 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ bail APPLN. 370/201 MAN1SH@TAKLA Applicant Through Mr. Kedar Yadav, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Rcsponient Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State SI Gaurav Kumar, PS Nand Nagri + bail APPT.N. 372/2016 anil @ BAUNA Applicant Through Mr. Kedar Yadav, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI p .T., , Respondent Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State SI Gaurav Kumar, PS Nand Nagri bail APPI.N. 375/201^ ASHOK @ TINKU ,• ry, , Applicant hrough Mr. Kedar Yadav, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Through Mr^Ravi Nayak, APP fors^ate SI Gaurav Kumar, PS Nand Nagri

CORAM:

TMN.BLEMR.d^^,,,«ARTHMRIDHL 08^012^ By:AMULYA

s The present are applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 1287/2015, under Sections 308/336/34 IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Nand Nagri, Delhi.

Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP appearing on behalf of the official respondent, on instructions from SI Gaurav Kumar, Police StationNand Nagri, Delhi, states that no notice either under Section 160 or under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has so far been issued to the applicants herein and further states that in the event the police wishes to question the applicants herein, a statutory notice in terms of the provisions of Section 41A shall be dispatched to the applicants in accordance with law, giving them ten days time to respond thereto.

In view of the foregoing submission, it is evident that there is no apprehension of arrest qua the applicants in the subject FIR at this Stage.

The applications thus being pre-mature at this stage stand disposed of accordingly.

Dasti.

/ MARCH 08, 2016 SIDMaRTH MRIDUL, J sd I