Manish v. State

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1012/2017 MANISH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Bachachan and Mr. Sivhnu Sharna, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Addl. PP for State with ASI Rajender Kumar, Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 16.06.2017 CRL. M.A. 9888/2017 (early hearing) Heard.

Allowed.

Application stands disposed off accordingly.

BAIL APPLN. 1012/2017 Status report has come to be handed over.

Copy was supplied in the earlier part of the day.

By the application, the applicant has sought interim bail for two months on the premise that his child is born and that, while his wife i.e. the mother of the child is anemic, the child is suffering from bronchitis and jaundice.

It is also stated that though, the applicant had earlier filed interim bail for the purpose of delivery of the child from 5.5.20174 to 19.5.2017, the delivery took place only on

24.5.2017.

As per the allegations, the applicant was one of the person, who robbed the complainant of Rs.1.40 crores at gun point from his shop. During TIP, the applicant is said to have been duly identified. Some recovery of money is also alleged from the applicant. Allegations are serious.

Public witnesses are yet to be examined.

Child has already come to be delivered on 24.5.2017 and as per the discharge summary of the child dated 12.6.2017, the child was though admitted with the complaint of fast breathing for two days, the fact remains that after the treatment, the child was discharged. In other words, there is no material on record that after the discharge, there is any situation for which the attendance of the applicant is required to attend to his wife and the child.

As per the status report, brother-in-law of the applicant is looking after his wife, besides providing financial help. Certificate of the wife for her being anemic ipso facto cannot be construed to be such, which requires emergent attendance of the applicant.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application especially, when the public witnesses are yet to be examined.

Dismissed.

A. K. CHAWLA, J (Vacation Judge) JUNE 16, 2017 rc