Allowed

Maun Khan v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC9 Oct 2024BAIL APPLN./1835/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail applicant in a ganja (NDPS) case sought modification of the condition barring him from leaving the NCR, having been employed as a Purchase Manager requiring travel outside Delhi NCR. The State raised no objection subject to an undertaking to attend trial proceedings without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Condition 4(i) modified; petitioner may travel outside NCR within India but shall not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Court.

Maun Khan Vs State NCT of Delhi — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1835/2024

¶4

MAUN KHAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Manvi Gupta, Ms. Shivani Sharma and Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Jitendra, AATS/SED

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.03.2025

¶11

CRL.M.A. 7793/2025 (for exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.A. 7792/2025

¶15

This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking modification of condition no. 4(i) of the order dated 09.10.2024, which reads as under:

¶16

“4. …….., it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M. and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶17

i) The applicant shall not leave the NCR without prior permission of the concerned Court.”

¶18

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶19

BAIL APPLN. 1835/2024

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:39:43

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has been employed by a firm named Balaji Traders and has been deputed as a Purchase Manager, which requires him to travel outside Delhi NCR.

¶23

She states that the Petitioner otherwise is a permanent resident of Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at the address mentioned in the memo of parties and has been residing at the said address since past many years.

¶24

Issue notice. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent-State.

¶25

He states that as on date the Petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the bail and subject to the Petitioner undertaking to duly attend the Trial Court proceedings and not seek any adjournment, the Respondent has no opposition to the said relief.

¶26

In reply, learned counsel of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner undertakes to duly attend the Trial Court proceedings on each date and not seek any adjournment on the ground of modification of this condition. She states that the relaxation is only being sought qua movement within the country to discharge office duties.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the modification as sought is allowed in light of the undertaking of the Petitioner that he will not seek any adjournment before the Trial Court on the ground of his office commitments.

¶28

Accordingly, the condition no. 4(i) in the order dated 09.10.2024 is modified to be read as under:

¶29

“4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the commercial quantity of ganja was recovered at the instance of Mohd. Qutub and Mohd. Rafiq and that there is no seizure effected at

¶30

BAIL APPLN. 1835/2024

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

¶33

the instance of the present applicant and the further the fact that the case is still at the consideration of charge and the supplementary challan is also yet to be filed, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M. and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶34

i) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Court.”

¶35

With the aforesaid directions, the application is allowed.

¶36

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶37

MARCH 11, 2025/ msh/ms

¶38

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 1835/2024

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

Maun Khan v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maun Khan v. State NCT 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

Mohd. Mustaqeem Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors.

Sh.Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mrs. Sonia Vs the State

Preeti Joshi & Anr. Vs the NCT Delhi & Ors.

Rsvp Clothing Private Limited & Anr. Vs Neeraj Sharma

Rsvp Clothing Private Limited & Anr. Vs Neeraj Sharma