In a bail application under Sections 395/397/412/34 IPC and Arms Act, the High Court of Delhi refused relief as material witnesses had not been examined and cross-examination was pending.
Bail petition dismissed; petitioner not granted bail.
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.
17# $~
Represented by: Mr. Adil Sharfuddin, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with SI Navdeep, PS Kamla Market.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 20.03.2018
Page 1 of 2
Both the complainant’s daughter and her husband in their statements suspected the involvement of the present petitioner and alleged that it was at the behest of the present petitioner who was their distant relative. Pursuant to the recoding of the statements, petitioner was arrested on 14th July, 2017 when two mobile phones Samsung Galaxy On7 and Samsung Galaxy E-5, purportedly belonging to the complainant and stolen on the date of incident were recovered.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MARCH 20, 2018 ‘vn’
Page 2 of 2
BAIL APPLN. 250/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner during pendency of trial given incomplete prosecution examination and pending material witnesses.
Arsalan Ali
State of NCT of Delhi
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
