Allowed

Naraino Devi v. State (Gnct of Delhi)

Delhi HC10 Feb 2017BAIL APPLN./232/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner, mother-in-law of the deceased in a 304B/498A IPC case, sought anticipatory bail. The court allowed the application, conditioning it on a personal bond with one surety, prohibiting tampering with evidence or witnesses, after noting the investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner shall be released on bail on arithmetic arrest upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety of Rs. 10,000.

Naraino Devi Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~30.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 232/2017

¶4

NARAINO DEVI

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

¶9

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Umadatt, PS Mangolpuri

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

¶11

O R D E R % 10.02.2017

¶12

The status report has been filed. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to seek anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in case FIR 944/2016 under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC. At this stage itself I may observe that counsel for the petitioner states that the Trial Court, however, added section 302/306 IPC at the time of taking cognisance.

¶13

The petitioner is the mother in law of the deceased. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge sheet in the case already stands filed. The petitioner was not arrested. The petitioner was not taken into custody for interrogation while the investigation was in progress. The petitioner has already joined the investigation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court on the basis of the statements of some of the witnesses.

¶15

Consequently, the State was directed to file a status report, particularly in relation to the statements made against the petitioner and brining out her role in the offence.

¶16

Mr. Katyal submits that the allegations are general in nature.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet stands filed, no useful purpose would be served in taking the petitioner in judicial custody. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In case of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the I.O./Arresting Officer. This is further subject to the condition that she shall not tamper with the evidence or seek to influence, threaten or coerce any of the witnesses.

¶18

Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶19

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 10, 2017 sr

Naraino Devi v. State (Gnct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naraino Devi v. State (Gnct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Rawat Vs State & Anr.

Subhash Chander Vs State

Kuldeep Singh &Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Subash Gupta Vs State

Smt Babli & Anr. Vs NCT Govt of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.