Mohit v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 323, 342, 354-B, 341, 506, and 34 IPC. The court granted the bail with monetary bond and specific conditions to prevent witness tampering or influence.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail granted in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety, subject to conditions regarding investigation participation and non-interference with witnesses or victim.
What the court decided
$~32
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- BAIL APPLN. 528/2017 MOHIT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.N.S.Dalal, Adv. with Mr.Devesh Pratap Singh and Ms.Toral Banerjee, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R % 24.03.2017
This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.92/2017, under Sections 323/342/354-B/341/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-Bhajanpura, Delhi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person having no nexus with the FIR No.92/2017, under Sections 323/342/354-B/341/506/34 IPC, registered at Police StationBhajanpura, Delhi. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the above case. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the
anticipatory bail application and submits that the petitioner is threatening witnesses.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest he be released on anticipatory bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned with the condition that the petitioner shall not contact, threaten or coerce the victim or any of family members of the victim; the petitioner shall not influence the prosecution witnesses; the petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution evidence and the petitioner should not leave India without prior permission of the Court below.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail must be granted to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.92/2017.
Whether conditions satisfactory to the investigating agency should be imposed while granting anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
MOHIT
- respondent
STATE
Coram
I.S.MEHTA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court