Mangi Lal Rathore v. State

$~10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 823/2017 MANGI LAL RATHORE ..... Petitioner Through Mr.J.P.

Sengh, Sr.Adv.

with Mr.Mahavir Singh, Mr.R.R. Jangu and Ms.Manisha Mehta, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP with SI Sandeep Yadav, Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 31.05.2017 Arguments heard.

The present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.124/2016, under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.

The allegations levelled in the present case are that on 15.07.2016 on the basis of secret information, a raiding party was formed and at about 01.30 p.m., accused Sonu Banjara was apprehended and a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was

served upon him. On checking the bag of accused Sonu Banjara, it was found to contain 3 kgs opium and seized. FIR was registered and accused Sonu Banjara was arrested. During investigation, co-accused Dinesh Chandel was arrested who disclosed that he supplied opium to accused Sonu Banjara on the direction of petitioner/accused Mangi Lal. On 07.09.2016, accused Mangi Lal was arrested. Submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail and the role of the present petitioner is only under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and he deserves the concession of bail on the ground of parity. It is matter of record that the co-accused persons of the petitioner/accused have already been granted bail. The role of the petitioner in the present case is under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

Consequently, on the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused Mangi Lal is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required. He is directed not to tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses. He is further directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.

Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the present petition by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any

of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial. The present petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. P.S.TEJI, J MAY 31, 2017 dd