Sanjay Kumar Sood v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SANJAY KUMAR SOOD ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Bansi Lal, PS Mehrauli.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 05.04.2018 By this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 467/2013 under Sections 308 IPC registered at PS Mehrauli. The above noted FIR was registered after a PCR call was received on 11th July, 2013 at 9.26 P.M. recorded by DD51A at PS Mehrauli informing that the husband was beating his wife at H. No. 340, Gurjar Tube Well, Maidangarhi. By the time Investigating Officer reached the spot injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR van and her father accompanied her. Blood was found scattered on the floor of the room. Statement of Satpal, father of the girl, was recorded who stated that Maya his daughter was married to Sanjay who had beaten her at the house of his elder brother, namely Ashok at Maidangarhi. Petitioner escaped from the spot and was later arrested. According to Satpal Singh he had solemnized marriage of Maya with the petitioner about two and half years prior to the incident. On 11th July,

2013 he came to H.No. 542, Khasra No. 322. Neb Sarai, New Delhi to meet his daughter. Marriage of the sister-in-law of his daughter was to be solemnized on 16th July, 2013. He had gone to the house of Ashok, brotherin-law of his daughter, for arranging money as the petitioner drank alcohol too much, for the last several years was beating his daughter and not giving her money for domestic expenses.

After talking about the money, he and Ashok both went to the market for bringing food while Maya stayed back. When they reached back they saw lot of blood oozing from the head of his daughter and she was lying on the floor. On being asked Maya stated, her husband had beaten her and ran away thereafter. Maya died in the hospital during treatment on 12th July, 2013.

Petitioner has been in custody since 12th July, 2013 and till date the trial has not been concluded. Out of 29 witnesses of the prosecution only 15 have been examined and 14 witnesses still remain to be examined. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for four years eight months, that all material witnesses have been examined and the trial still to take some time for the reason 14 prosecution witness are yet to be examined, this court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with two surety bond of the like amount, out of which one surety bond will be of a family member of the petitioner, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, further subject to the condition that the petitioner would furnish his permanent address and mobile phone number from where he could be contacted and in

case of change of residential address the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

Petition is disposed of.

Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

APRIL 05, 2018 'yo'