Dheeraj Bajaj v. State

10# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2980/2016 DHEERAJ BAJAJ ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Puneet Singhal, Advocate.

Son of the petitioner in person.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Sukhi Ram, PS North Rohini.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 09.09.2016 1.

The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20th May, 2016 in case FIR No.307/2011 under Sections 420/468/471/467/120B/34 IPC registered at PS North Rohini, Delhi. However, while granting bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and that the petitioner will not leave the station without prior permission of the Court and will not contact the complainant in any manner and not tamper with the evidence. 2.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the order directing him to furnish two surety bonds of `50,000/- each and thus filed an application that the amount of surety bond be reduced and the sureties be reduced from two to one. Vide order dated 27th May, 2016 though the learned Trial Court reduced the CRL.M.C. 2980/2016

bond amount from `50,000/- to ` 35,000/- however, maintained that two sureties would be submitted. Hence the present petition by the petitioner from jail.

3.

It is evident that despite the order dated 20th May, 2016 which was modified on 27th May, 2016 the petitioner has not been able to reap the benefit of the order in view of his financial condition. 4.

A status report has been filed which shows that the family of the petitioner is residing in a rented accommodation at House No.139, Third Floor, Chanderlok Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. 5.

Considering the financial condition of the petitioner and that despite order having been passed in his favour in May, 2016 he has not been able to furnish the two sureties, the order dated 27th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified. The petitioner be now released on his furnishing a personal bond of `35,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 6.

The other conditions imposed vide order dated 20th May, 2016 would remain as it is.

7.

The son of the petitioner is present in Court and informs that the petitioner has already furnished one surety bond for a sum of `35,000/-. 8.

Petition is disposed of.

9.

Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master. MUKTA GUPTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2016/'vn'

CRL.M.C. 2980/2016