Held to be a dismissed application filed for regular bail (with the charge sheet already filed but charges unframed) by an applicant willing to pay the embezzled amount. The court directed the trial court to consider a fresh bail application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
#33
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Date of decision: 02.02.2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 204/2016 and Crl. MA No. 1499/2016 (Exemption)
ROMESH SAHU @ ROMESH VISHWANATH ..... Applicant Through Mr. R.K. Tarun, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State SI A.K. Singh, P.S. EOW
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
BAIL APPLN. 204/2016
Page 1 of 4
BAIL APPLN. 204/2016
Page 2 of 4
Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant in the subject FIR within a period of two days from today. The undertaking made on behalf of the applicant is hereby accepted.
BAIL APPLN. 204/2016
Page 3 of 4
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2016 SD
BAIL APPLN. 204/2016
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for regular bail under Sections 439 and 482 CrPC, filed after the charge sheet was filed but charges framed, be allowed.
Whether the applicant deserves parity with a co-accused who was granted bail pending charge framing.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Romesh Sahu @ Romesh Vishwanath
State of NCT of Delhi
Siddharth Mridul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
