Jyoti vs State Govt. Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 September, 2021

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jyoti vs State Govt. Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 September, 2021

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

$~14 to 16
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CRL.M.C. 2239/2021
       JYOTI                                      ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Advocate.
                       versus
       STATE GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR.           ..... Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
                                State.
+      CRL.M.C. 2240/2021
       JYOTI                                      ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Advocate.
                       versus
       STATE GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR.           ..... Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
                                State.
+      CRL.M.C. 2248/2021
       JYOTI                                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Advocate
                     versus
       STATE GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ANR.         ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
                              State.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
               ORDER

% 21.09.2021 CRL.M.A. 15032/2021 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 2239/2021 CRL.M.A. 15033/2021 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 2240/2021 CRL.M.A. 15056/2021 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 2248/2021 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 2239/2021 etc. Page 1 of 2

CRL.M.C. 2239/2021 & CRL.M.C. 2240/2021 & CRL.M.C. 2248/2021

1. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C have been filed for challenging the order dated 11.08.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi, granting bail to the three accused, namely, Deepak Verma, Gaurav Sharma and Saurabh Sharma.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is without reasons. He also states that the facts have not been recorded properly and are not in correct perspective.

3. Be that as it may. FIR No.466/2021 dated 10.07.2021, has been registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar for the offences under Sections 323/342/354/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC. The offences under Sections 307/376/392 IPC have been added later.

4. Looking at the Sections under which the FIR had been initially filed and considering the fact that the CCTV footage is already in the custody of the police, taking into account the statements of the accused viz-a-viz the complainant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order granting bail to the petitioners at this stage.

5. Needless to state and it is trite law that the observations made by a Court granting cannot be used at any stage of trial.

6. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 S. Zakir CRL.M.C. 2239/2021 etc. Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders