Vipin Kumar v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner filed a bail application seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR involving a cheque dispute. The High Court granted bail after conditions including payment of ₹3 lacs and undertaking to join investigation were imposed.
What did the court decide?
Admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety, payment of ₹3 lacs to complainant within one week, and undertaking to join investigation.
What the court decided
$~16
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- BAIL APPLN. 330/2018 & Crl. M.A. No.2608/2018 VIPIN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Parag Chawla, Mr. Sudeep Sudan and Ms. Munindra Dvivedi, Advs.
| versus | ||
|---|---|---|
| STATE | ..... Respondent | |
| Through | Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the | |
| State | ||
| Complainant in person. |
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 12.02.2018
The petitioner is seeking anticipatory protection. FIR has been registered on the complaint of the complainant (present in person). The allegations in the complaint have been perused. A sum of ₹11 lacs is due to the complainant in terms of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this amount. His submission is that separate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been preferred by the petitioner; the cheque which had been dishonoured was only in the sum of ₹3 lacs but that amount has been enhanced and made to read as ₹13 lacs. Needless to state that this position is not admitted by the complainant.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on payment of sum and undertaking to cooperate in investigation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
VIPIN KUMAR
- respondent
STATE
Coram
Indermeet Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court