Mukesh Kumar v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1257/2016 MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate.

versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Raghuvendra Verma, APP for State alongwith SI Mukesh, P.S.

Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 27.06.2016 CRL. M.A. 9891/2016 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1257/2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested due to his alleged involvement in FIR No. 948/2015 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi on 12th September, 2015 and thereafter, he remained in the judicial custody till 15th March, 2016, when he was granted interim bail for two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was vehemently opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the co-accused was yet to be arrested. It is submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and the same does not mention the name of co-accused, who was being referred to by the prosecution while opposing the interim bail application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail to the

petitioner as the chargesheet has already been filed and the petitioner is no more required in judicial custody. He further submits that the petitioner/ applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not indulge in any illegal or criminal activity and shall not threaten any witness or tamper with the evidence on being released on bail.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner's regular bail has been rejected four times earlier and no new ground is made out in the instant bail application. Since the charge sheet is stated to have been filed, no fruitful purpose would be served, if the accused is kept in judicial custody for further period, therefore, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court with the condition that the petitioner/applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not threaten any witness or tamper with the evidence. The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

I.S. MEHTA (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 27, 2016 j