This Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the modification of anticipatory bail terms. The modification was based on the petitioner's own consent to deposit security, and the Court found no illegality in doing so.
The Revision Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
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.
$~47 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2017
CHARANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Kamal Kr.Ghei, APP for State/R-1 Mr.Ikrant Sharma with Mr.Ravi Bhargava, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1.25 crores and his request to deposit the title documents of the property in lieu of 1 crore was declined.Crl.Rev.P.22/2017 Page 1 of 2
was dismissed by an order dated 07.09.2016. At the time of consideration of second anticipatory bail application, the petitioner offered to deposit 1.25 crores without prejudice to the rights and contentions to show his bona fide. This offer was accepted by the complainant as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25 lacs in the shape of FDR within two days and remaining amount of `1.0 crore was directed to be deposited in the shape of FDR with the concerned court of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, KKD Courts within seventy-five days.
25 lacs have been deposited by way of FDR before the Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD Courts. Perusal of the order reveals that it was a consent order in which the petitioner himself had offered to deposit 1.25 crores to show his bona fide. 4. Since the impugned order was based upon petitioner’s consent, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity to modify its terms and conditions.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
s a
Crl.Rev.P.22/2017 Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to modify the terms of an anticipatory bail order based on the petitioner’s own consent.
Whether the Revision Petition challenging the direction to deposit security has merit in view of the petitioner’s consent.
Whether the impugned order modifying the terms of the previous anticipatory bail order based on the consent of the parties can be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Charanjeet Singh
STATE
R-2
S.P.GARG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court