Kamal v. State

$~9.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1721/2016 KAMAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Naresh & Mr. Ashish Dogra, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with SI Vijay Mann, PS Burari.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 18.01.2017 The petitioner has preferred the present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in case FIR No. 383/2016 registered at police station Burari under Sections 307/392/397 IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been named as a co-accused merely on the basis of a disclosure statement of another accused Yogender @ Montu. The further submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner was driving EECO vehicle which had been taken on rent for transporting passengers. Learned counsel submits that, in fact, it was the said EECO vehicle which had been fired upon. Learned counsel further

submits that the other co-accused, namely, Bhim and Sunny @ Baniya had been granted interim protection against arrest. Another accused Vijay Pal has already been granted regular bail.

Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation on several occasions, I am inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is directed that in case of his arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. This is further subject to the condition that the applicant shall join the investigation and shall co-operate with the investigating authority as and when called for. The petitioner shall not contact the prosecution witnesses or threaten them or influence them in any way, and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

The application stands disposed of. Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JANUARY 18, 2017 sl