CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 08 DEL CK 0476

Ravinder Pratap Singh vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 31 August 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
RESULT
Diposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No..3345 Of 2013, & Crl. M.A. 12316 Of 2013, 12767 Of 2016, 31154 Of 2018
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 346 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Mr. Kamal Anand, Advocate for respondent no. 2 prays for an adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to

accede to the request.Â

2.

The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 237 of 2012 under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, New

Delhi.Â

3.

The subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the wife of the petitioner who had made certain allegations. The petitioner was granted

anticipatory bail by order dated 21.09.2012 by the trial court.Â

4.

An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr. P.C. was made, which application was allowed on 18.07.2013 and the bail granted

to the petitioner was cancelled.Â

5.

Thereafter the present petition was filed wherein by an interim order dated 19.08.2013, operation of the order cancelling the bail was stayed. The

effect of the interim order dated 19.08.2013 is that the petitioner continues to be on bail.

6.

Thereafter the proceedings have been continued from time to time. The interim order dated 19.08.2013 has been in force for the last five years.Â

7.

I am informed that the trial court proceedings are continuing and that the matter before the trial court is at the stage of framing of charge. Charge

sheet has been filed on 21.05.2016.Â

8.

In view the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court on 21.09.2012 and in terms of the interim order dated 19.08.2013,

continues to be on bail till date, FIR is an offshoot of matrimonial dispute and further that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has already

been filed, no purpose would be served in incarcerating the petitioner at this stage. Furthermore, there is no allegation that the petitioner has misused

the liberty or violated any of the conditions for grant of bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.07.2013 cancelling the bail of the petitioner is

set aside. The order dated 21.09.2012 admitting petitioner to bail is restored.Â

9.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.Â