Vichitarvir @ Pintos v. The State

$~6 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2317/2018 and CRL.M.A. 11378/2019 VICHITARVIR @ PINTOS ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Kunal Yadav, Advocate.

versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Amit Gupta, APP for State.

SI Surendra Sharma, ISC Crime Branch, Chankyapuri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 11.09.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that he be granted bail in connection with FIR No. 518/2016 under Sections 364A/365/482/120-B of the IPC registered with PS Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi (subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch). 2.

The Chargesheet has named fifty-two witnesses, out of which fourteen have been examined.

However, the cross-examination of four witnesses has been deferred. It is also stated that material witnesses have not been examined. In particular, the person abducted (Mr Kartik Sharma) has not been examined.

3.

This Court is of the view that given the seriousness of the charge and considering that material witnesses have not been examined, it would not be apposite to accede to the petitioner's prayer at this stage. 4.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed directing the Trial Court to take all steps necessary to record the testimony of the material

witnesses within a period of four months from today. The Trial Court shall ensure that the person alleged to have been abducted is examined at the earliest and in any event, within the aforesaid period. 5.

The petitioner is at liberty to apply after the testimony of the material witness has been recorded.

6.

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 RK