Anuj Kumar v. The State

$~56.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1827/2014 ANUJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 18.07.2016 Crl. M.A. No.10611/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. No. 10610/2016 Issue notice. Learned APP accepts notice.

This application has been filed by the petitioner/ accused to seek a direction to the IO to handover his passport to him for a period of one week. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the passport, in fact, stands deposited with the trial court as the charge-sheet stands filed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

petitioner has enrolled to attend a conference at Bangkok, Thailand on 29-30 July, 2016. He states that the petitioner wishes to travel to attend the said conference and the petitioner proposes to leave on 28.07.2016 for a week. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the parties have arrived at a settlement whereunder they have agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner has agreed to make payment of Rs.7 Lakhs to the complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims. The first motion petition already stands allowed and an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs stands paid to the complainant. A copy of the order dated 15.03.2016 has been placed on record.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned APP does not oppose the application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The trial court shall return the passport to the petitioner. He is permitted to travel to Bangkok for a period of one week, as aforesaid. After he returns, he shall surrender his passport to the trial court. He shall also furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- before the trial court. Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 18, 2016 B.S. Rohella