Sudesh Kumar v. State

$-9 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ (i) BAIL APPLN. 2341/2014 MAYA DEVI Petitioner Through;

Mr. Manu Sharma and Mr. Abhir Datt, Advocates versus STATE Respondent Through:

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Mr. Raj Pal Kasana, Advocate for complainant + (ii) BAIL APPLN. 2353/2014 SUDESH KUMAR Petitioner Through:

Mr. Manu Sharma and Mr. Abhir Datt, Advocates versus STATE Respondent Through:

Mr.Parveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Mr. Raj Pal Kasana, Advocate for complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

o/„ 29.04.2015 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these BAIL APPLNs. 2341 & 2353 of 2014 By:AMULYA

applications are being heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.

Petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question who seek pre-arrest bail m FIR No.289/2014 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi while claiming to be innocent. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have already joined the investigation of this case and the mediation has failed, but without prejudice to the rights of petitioners, an FDR for rupees two lac in the name of trial court would be deposited with the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. The factum of joining the investigation of this case by petitioners is not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

Without commenting upon merits of this case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioners-Maya Devi and Sudesh Kumar be admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of ^20,000/- each with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer.

Both these applications are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

(SnONIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 29, 2015 s BAIL APPLNs. 2341 & 2353 of2014