Manoj vs.the State

Manoj vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 05, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218487

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/1218487
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 05, 2018
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj

Respondent

The State

Excerpt

.....is her husband had stolen rs.25,000/- and a gold chain and has handed over the same to the co- accused.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. he submits that the complaint is an offshoot of a bail appln. 1010/2018 page 1 of 2 matrimonial dispute.4.... petitioner was granted interim protection, subject to joining investigation by order dated 3rd may, 2018.5. learned additional public prosecutor for the state informs that petitioner did joined investigation, investigation has been concluded and charge-sheet is being finalised for being filed in the court.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.8. 9. the petition is disposed of in the above terms. order dasti under signatures of the court master. october05 2018 ‘hkaur’ sanjeev sachdeva, j bail appln. 1010/2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

05. 10.2018 BAIL APPLN. 1010/2018 MANOJ versus ........ Petitioner

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

: Ms.Sanobar Ali, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for the State CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0510.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.102/2018, under Section 380 IPC, registered at New Ashok Nagar.

2. The allegations against the petitioner made by the prosecutrix in the FIR are that she suspects that the petitioner who is her husband had stolen Rs.25,000/- and a gold chain and has handed over the same to the co- accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. He submits that the complaint is an offshoot of a BAIL APPLN. 1010/2018 Page 1 of 2 matrimonial dispute.

4.... Petitioner

was granted interim protection, subject to joining investigation by order dated 3rd May, 2018.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State informs that petitioner did joined investigation, investigation has been concluded and charge-sheet is being finalised for being filed in the Court.

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.

8. 9. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. OCTOBER05 2018 ‘hkaur’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J BAIL APPLN. 1010/2018 Page 2 of 2

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