This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating and smuggling case, imposing strict conditions including cooperation in investigation, prohibition on leaving India, and reporting requirements.
Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions.
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.
$~4
PARVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Mr. Sachin Kumar, Ms. Pragya Dhoundiyal, Mr. Abhishek Dubey and Ms. Riddhi Goyal, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Amit Kumar, PS IGI Airport
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
O R D E R % 11.12.2024
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 02/07/2025 at 02:29:29
transpired that there were certain WhatsApp chat between Jitender Singh Gill and the petitioner. Learned APP also submits that during the investigation, the petitioner has given evasive replies.
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 02/07/2025 at 02:29:29
petitioner at his instruction started providing logistic support to the passengers who are intending to visit Malaysia. Jitender Singh Gill further disclosed that petitioner used to arrange donkey route for Malaysia and further remains that the petitioner used to sign passenger to Thiland and thereafter to Malaysia for illegally crossing the Border.
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 02/07/2025 at 02:29:29
“14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in CrPC was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When 7 M we carefully analyze this section. the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also pressed in service he age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.”
The aspect of personal liberty was also considered by the Apex Court inter alia observing as under:
“36. All human beings are born with some unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The importance of these natural rights can be found in the fact that these are fundamental for their proper existence and no other right can be enjoyed without the presence of right to life and liberty. Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and it would lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not be worth living. That is why '1iberty is called the very quintessence of a civilized existence.”
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 02/07/2025 at 02:29:29
month;
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 11, 2024/ tp/ht
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 02/07/2025 at 02:29:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner albeit named in co-accused statements and charged with contraband-smuggling offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidharam Satlingappa Mehtre vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶13
Sidharam Satlingappa Mehtre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011)1 SCC 604 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parvinder Singh
State of NCT of Delhi
Dinesh Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
