Ankit Chhikara v. State

I- 19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 18, 2015 + BAIL APPLN. 918/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7337/2015 ANKIT CHHIKARA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravin Rao, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Hari Om Complainant in person + BAIL APPLN. 919/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7338/2015 NAVEEN CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravin Rao, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Hari Om Complainant in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

% (ORAL) In the above captioned applications, pre-arrest bail is sought by petitioners in FIR No. 299/2015, under Section 307/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, West Delhi. Notice.

Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice.

Since both these applications arise out of one FIR, therefore, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the injured- complainant/ first-informant of this FIR is present in the Court and he submits that he had suffered injury by fall and not at the hands of petitioners and that another injured- Aman had suffered only simple injuries in this incident.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that petitioners are required for investigation. Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners would be appearing before the Investigating Officer of this case on 19th May, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called. Without commenting on the merits of this case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail in this case on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of `25,000/-each with one local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer

concerned. It is made clear that if petitioners fail to join investigation as and when directed, then respondent -State would be at liberty to get this order revoked.

The above captioned applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 18, 2015 r