State v. Ravi Kumar & ORS.

$~5.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 569/2017 STATE ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with SI Sachin, PS Bharat Nagar versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Ajay Kr Gaur, Pradeep Kr, Adv for R-2 to 4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 23.01.2018 CRL.M.A. 16245/2017 By this application, the State seeks condonation of 58 days delay in filing the leave petition. The reasons have been disclosed in the application. It appears that the decision to prefer the present leave petition has been taken after due consideration and scrutiny of the impugned judgment, and in that process there has been some delay. Since the delay is not much and counsel for the respondent fairly does not oppose the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.L.P. 569/2017 Ms. Tiwari informs that the respondent/ convicts have preferred Crl A No.509/2017 to assail their conviction under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The impugned judgment is, therefore, pending scrutiny by the court in the said appeal.

We have heard learned APP as well as counsel for the respondent and we are of the view that the impugned judgment requires consideration to examine the pleas raised by the State in the present leave petition. Accordingly, leave is granted.

Crl. A No. ................................../ 2018 (to be registered & numbered) Let the appeal be registered and numbered. The record of Crl A No.509/2017 be called and tagged along with the present appeal. Both the appeals shall be heard by this court simultaneously. The paper books be got prepared and supplied to learned counsels. List the appeal in its due course. The respondents are admitted to bail in the present appeal on the basis of the same bail bond as furnished in their appeal itself. VIPIN SANGHI, J P.S.TEJI, J JANUARY 23, 2018 sr