Kumar Sonam @ Vipin v. State

$~9 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1785/2017 KUMAR SONAM @ VIPIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abhimanyu K. With Mr. Ankur Modi, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.

Insp. Tulsi Ram, PS Najafgarh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 04.01.2018 1.

By the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks bail.

It is contended that though a direction was issued on 05.12.2016 requiring the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, the trial has not yet been concluded and, on the last date, i.e. 18.12.2017, in view of absence of the witnesses for prosecution, the case was adjourned to 17.02.2018. It is contended that as per the list of witnesses supplied only the official witnesses i.e. Police Officers are remaining to be examined. 2.

Learned counsel submits that, in case, the direction for expedition is reiterated and the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial or at least conclude the examination of the prosecution witnesses within a period of three months, he shall not press the application. BAIL APPLN. 1785/2017

3.

In view of the above, the attention of the learned Trial Court is drawn to order dated 05.12.2016 of this Court in Bail Appln. No.1631/2016 requesting the Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. It is hoped that the trial Court shall conclude the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses within a period of three months from today.

4.

In view of the above, list the matter before the Trial Court on 10.01.2017 for fixing the expeditious schedule for recording the prosecution evidence.

5.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn in the above terms.

6.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 04, 2018 st BAIL APPLN. 1785/2017