Kunal Shokeen v. State

$~6 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1824/2015 KUNAL SHOKEEN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Beniwal, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for State.

SI Sumit, P.S. Paschim Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 09.09.2015 The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 291/2012 (PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi) instituted for offence under Sections 307/34 IPC.

One Ashu Shokeen was injured at the hands of the Arjun Shokeen and others.

The FIR was registered on the statement of one of the friends of injured namely Ajay Hooda who alleged that because of some personal and past disputes, Arjun Shokeen hit the injured with his car leading to serious injuries on his person.

The statement of injured was taken after he regained consciousness after sometime. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the victim has given the name of the petitioner but has not attributed any specific role to

him. It has been alleged in the statement that while he was being assaulted, the petitioner was present all through.

It is submitted that the injured had taken the name of one Partha Shokeen.

Partha Shokeen & Arjun Shokeen have been admitted to regular bail. The petitioner was not sent up for trial but the Court below has taken cognizance and has issued summons to him.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the event of his surrender or arrest, the petitioner would be released on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petition is disposed of.

A copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2015 rs