Mohd. Asif vs.the State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr

Mohd. Asif vs The State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 03, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218388

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/1218388
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 03, 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

Mohd. Asif

Respondent

The State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr

Excerpt

.....the petitioner approached the permanent lok adalat for settlement, however, the amount of bill being beyond his reach, he could not pay the same. since the amount was not paid the prosecution continues.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the name of the tenants being disclosed to the investigating officer, the tenants have not been made accused. he further submits that the condition of deposit of 35% of the impugned theft assessment bill is onerous. he further submits that such a condition could not be imposed for grant of bail.4. learned counsel appearing for bses-ypl relies on the judgment of the coordinate bench in “sanjit malik & anr. vs. the state (nct of delhi) & ors.” ilr (2008) ii delhi 524 to contend that there can be a pre-condition of pre deposit of part of the amount as a pre-condition for grant of bail. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the page 2 of 3 5. crl.m.c. 4740/2018 impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the impugned theft bill within a period of one month from today. the other terms and conditions shall remain the same. the petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. order dasti under the signatures of the court master.6. 7. october03 2018 ‘rs’ sanjeev sachdeva, j crl.m.c. 4740/2018 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4740/2018 Judgment delivered on:

03. 10.2018 MOHD. ASIF ........ Petitioner

versus THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

Mr. Kshitiz Mahipal & Mr. Parveen Yadav, Advocates Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

s: For the... RESPONDENTS

: CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghai, APP for the State. SI Nisar Ahmed Advocate for BSES-YPL (name not given) JUDGMENT0310.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 32317-18 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4740/2018 1.... Petitioner

impugns the bail order dated 23.08.2018 whereby a condition has been imposed on the petitioner to deposit 35% of the CRL.M.C. 4740/2018 Page 1 of 3 impugned theft assessment bill.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and had rented out the same to Mohd. Nadeem and Mohd. Sharif and thereafter physical possession of the premises was with the said tenants and he was not in control of the electricity meter and if there was any tampering or theft of the electricity, since the tenants were in physical possession, they were liable for the same. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement, however, the amount of bill being beyond his reach, he could not pay the same. Since the amount was not paid the prosecution continues.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the name of the tenants being disclosed to the Investigating Officer, the tenants have not been made accused. He further submits that the condition of deposit of 35% of the impugned theft assessment bill is onerous. He further submits that such a condition could not be imposed for grant of bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for BSES-YPL relies on the judgment of the coordinate bench in “Sanjit Malik & Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.” ILR (2008) II Delhi 524 to contend that there can be a pre-condition of pre deposit of part of the amount as a pre-condition for grant of bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Page 2 of 3 5. CRL.M.C. 4740/2018 impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the impugned theft bill within a period of one month from today. The other terms and conditions shall remain the same. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

6. 7. OCTOBER03 2018 ‘rs’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CRL.M.C. 4740/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Mohd. Asif vs The State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition