Upendra Kumar vs.state

Upendra Kumar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 24, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218128

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/1218128
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Sep 24, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Upendra Kumar

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....that petitioner did not inform or object to the commission of the offence by the co-accused.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has bail appln. 2051/2017 page 1 of 2 been falsely implicated and even if the allegations were to be taken at their face value, at best an offence under section 21 pocso act could be made out and no offence for abetment can be made out.4.... petitioner was granted interim protection by order dated 13.04.2018 subject to petitioner joining investigation.5. learned app informs that petitioner did join investigation. the investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed.6. without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.7. accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/io/sho shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/sho concerned.... petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.... petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court. the petition is disposed of in the above terms. order dasti under signatures of the court master 8.9. september24 2018 rk bail appln. 2051/2017 sanjeev sachdeva, j page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

24. 09.2018 BAIL APPLN. 2051/2017 UPENDRA KUMAR STATE versus ........ Petitioner

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

: For the Respondent: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sanjeev, P.S.Mayur Vihar. Mr.Rajeev Chhetri, Adv. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.248/2017 under Section
of the IPC and Sections 6/
of the POCSO Act, P.S. Mayur Vihar.

2. The allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are that when the alleged offence was being committed by his brother at the rooftop, he came to roof, observed what was happening and thereafter left. It is contended that petitioner did not inform or object to the commission of the offence by the co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has BAIL APPLN. 2051/2017 Page 1 of 2 been falsely implicated and even if the allegations were to be taken at their face value, at best an offence under Section 21 POCSO Act could be made out and no offence for abetment can be made out.

4.... Petitioner

was granted interim protection by order dated 13.04.2018 subject to petitioner joining investigation.

5. Learned APP informs that petitioner did join investigation. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed.

6. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.... Petitioner

shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.... Petitioner

shall not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master 8.

9. SEPTEMBER24 2018 rk BAIL APPLN. 2051/2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Upendra Kumar vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition