This bail application under Section 439(1a) Cr.P.C. was rejected. The Court held that the nature of the offence, involving the use of deadly weapons like iron rods and firearms during a midnight assault, was too serious to warrant bail, consistent with prior rejections and established principles.
Bail application dismissed. Exemption not allowed.
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.
$~51
CHANDAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.P.Singh Bidhuri, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with SI Sahi Ram, Ps Sangam Vihar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
% 15.01.2016
Crl.M.A. No.638/2016
BAIL APPLN. 84/2016
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out as the bullet has hit only the thigh of the injured and not any vital portion of the body. The injured was discharged on the same day, hence it is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody since 30.11.2015.
Page 2 of 4
conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
‘In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.’
BAIL APPLN. 84/2016 Page 3 of 4
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JANUARY 15, 2016 ‘st’
BAIL APPLN. 84/2016
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a serious offence involving deadly weapons and violence where prior applications were rejected.
Whether the nature of the offence disentitles the petitioner from release on bail.
Whether the presence of weapons and midnight assault escalates the gravity of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu YadavReferred¶23
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandan Gupta
State (NCT of Delhi)
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
