Ram Babu v. State & ANR.

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2891/2016 RAM BABU ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.Vikramjeet Singh, Mr.

Vishal Khadia, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with WSI Birmati PS Dwarka North.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 11.08.2016 Crl.M.A. 12439/2016 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2891/2016 Notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice. The only grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 26th July, 2016 is that he has been released on bail but is required to furnish two surety bonds for a sum of `30,000/- each which he is not in a position to furnish.

The residence of the petitioner has been verified by the investigating officer. The bail was granted to the petitioner after the child victim and mother appeared in the Court and said that the FIR was lodged out of anger. However, the condition of two surety bonds for a sum of `30,000/- is CRL.M.C. 2891/2016

excessive considering the financial position of the petitioner who was a rickshaw puller.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 26th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, SouthWest District in 'State Vs. Rambabu' FIR No.162/16 PS Dwarka North is modified. The petitioner will now be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 11, 2016 'ga'

CRL.M.C. 2891/2016