Pintu Das vs.state of Nct of Delhi

Pintu Das vs State of Nct of Delhi

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 26, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218921

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/1218921
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 26, 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

Pintu Das

Respondent

State of Nct of Delhi

Excerpt

.....sachdeva, j.(oral) 1. the petitioner seeks regular bail in case fir no.314/2017 under sections 381/328/4ipc, police station karol bagh (now before the special investigation cell).2. the allegations in the fir are that the complainant, who has a factory of making gold ornaments, left the factory in the evening. thereafter, the co-accused is alleged to have celebrated the birthday of his son and distributed sweets among other workers, which was laced with intoxicant, after consuming which the workers became unconscious. in the morning when the complainant returned to his factory, he found that the bail appln.2105/2018 page 1 of 2 vault was opened and all the workers were sound asleep and seemed to be unconscious. subsequently, it was found that approximately 3.5 kg of gold jewellery, etc. was stolen.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the petitioner is not even named in the fir. there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was even present on the spot and there is no recovery made from the petitioner.4. the investigation is complete. charge sheet has already been filed.... petitioner has been in custody since 24.03.2018.5. keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.03.2018, investigation is complete and the fact that the main co- accused, who is named in the fir, has already been admitted to regular bail, without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, i am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. the petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.6. 7. the petition is disposed of in the above terms. order dasti under.....

Full Judgment

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

26. 10.2018 BAIL APPLN. 2105/2018 PINTU DAS versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner

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

: For the Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Swaroop with Mr. S.P. Bana, Advocates. Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State. SI Prabhanshu, Crime Branch. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2610.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.314/2017 under Sections 381/328/4
IPC, Police Station Karol Bagh (now before the Special Investigation Cell).

2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant, who has a factory of making gold ornaments, left the factory in the evening. Thereafter, the co-accused is alleged to have celebrated the birthday of his son and distributed sweets among other workers, which was laced with intoxicant, after consuming which the workers became unconscious. In the morning when the complainant returned to his factory, he found that the BAIL APPLN.2105/2018 Page 1 of 2 vault was opened and all the workers were sound asleep and seemed to be unconscious. Subsequently, it was found that approximately 3.5 kg of gold jewellery, etc. was stolen.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the petitioner is not even named in the FIR. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner was even present on the spot and there is no recovery made from the petitioner.

4. The investigation is complete. Charge sheet has already been filed.... Petitioner

has been in custody since 24.03.2018.

5. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.03.2018, investigation is complete and the fact that the main co- accused, who is named in the FIR, has already been admitted to regular bail, without commenting upon the merits of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

6. 7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. OCTOBER26 2018/st BAIL APPLN.2105/2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Pintu Das vs State of Nct of Delhi Same Subject Land Acquisition