High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

ANIL BHATIA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

Delhi High Court · Decided on 28 June 2017 · Citation: (2017) 06 DEL CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Yogesh Khanna
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
789 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 308 words

Crl.M.A.10057/2017

1.

The applicant was granted interim bail on medical grounds for a period of four weeks vide order dated 26.05.2017 passed by Roster Bench in Crl.M.B. No.920/2017.

2.

The applicant through the present application had applied for extension of interim bail for a further period of six weeks on the ground that he is going to be operated upon on 02.07.2017.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that his successive anticipatory bail applications were dismissed right upto the Apex Court and that

he was even declared a proclaimed offender. Besides this, it is also stated that though the applicant had filed a certificate dated 12.06.2017 of Dr.Sudheer Tyagi which contains an endorsement "Admit for surgery on 02.07.2017", but the same doctor has given yet another letter dated 21.06.2017 to the Medical Superintendent of Apollo Hospital, New Delhi which says that "I advised the applicant to try the injection Trigeminal and if he does not respond to this, can come for surgery. Patient has requested to book him for surgery on 02.07.2017. No test has been done."

4.

It is not disputed that in both the letters dated 12.06.2017 21.06.2017 the doctor concerned has indicated for admission of applicant for surgery on 02.07.2017.

5.

Considering the fact that the regular bail application is pending before the Roster Bench for 12.07.2017 and seeing the illness of the applicant, the interim bail of applicant is further extended till 03 rd July, 2017 only on earlier terms and conditions as indicated in order dated 26.05.2017.

6.

The application stands disposed of.

Matter was listed for orders today and was pronounced but at this stage the counsel for the petitioner has appeared and submit that the applicant has already surrendered with the jail authorities. Thus, in the circumstances the order passed has become infructuous. Bail application is thus disposed of.