Haresh vs.state

Haresh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 12, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1216003

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1216003
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jul 12, 2018
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Haresh

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....implicated as the petitioner was not in delhi on the said date and time but was in ahmadabad. to substantiate his contentions, the petitioner had relied on cctv footage from a public bus stop in ahmadabad. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is apparent from the cctv footage that the petitioner could not have been in delhi as he is found in ahmadabad in a bus stand.5. the investigating officer was directed to verify the same. he has filed a status report and taken into possession the cctv footage from the bus stand. the cctv footage has been produced in court and has been seen.6. without commenting upon the merits of the case, on examination of the records, i am of the view that the petitioner has bail appln. 1279/2018 page 2 of 3 made out a case for grant of regular bail. subject to petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in another case. the petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.7. the petition is disposed of in the above terms.8. order dasti under signatures of the court master. july 12, 2018 st sanjeev sachdeva, j bail appln. 1279/2018 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

12. 07.2018 BAIL APPLN. 1279/2018 HARESH STATE versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla with Mr. Alok Shukla, Mr. Jashdeep Singh and Ms. Neena Shukla, Advocates. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State. SI Sunil with IO ASI Sanjeev, PS Lahori Gate. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1207.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks Regular Bail in FIR No.95/2018 under Sections 379 IPC, Police Station Lahori Gate. The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2018.

2. The allegations in the FIR are that on 19.04.2018 at about 2:30 pm, the complainant was going on a rickshaw when another person BAIL APPLN. 1279/2018 Page 1 of 3 came and sat on the rickshaw with him. Thereafter when that other person left, the complainant realized that his bag which had contained Rs.2,90,000/- was missing.

3. As per the FIR, the accused is alleged to have given his mobile number. As per the prosecution, said mobile number was being used by the petitioner on the said date and time. As per the prosecution, the cell location of the said mobile could not be traced as the number was found to be switched off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the petitioner was not in Delhi on the said date and time but was in Ahmadabad. To substantiate his contentions, the petitioner had relied on CCTV footage from a public bus stop in Ahmadabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is apparent from the CCTV Footage that the petitioner could not have been in Delhi as he is found in Ahmadabad in a bus stand.

5. The Investigating Officer was directed to verify the same. He has filed a status report and taken into possession the CCTV Footage from the bus stand. The CCTV footage has been produced in Court and has been seen.

6. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, on examination of the records, I am of the view that the petitioner has BAIL APPLN. 1279/2018 Page 2 of 3 made out a case for grant of regular bail. Subject to petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in another case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. July 12, 2018 st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J BAIL APPLN. 1279/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Haresh vs State Same Subject Criminal