Amit vs.state

Amit vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 22, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1224138

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/1224138
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jul 22, 2019
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

Amit

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....26.04.2018 and 29.05.2018. he was apprehended on 12.07.2018.5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had earlier remained in custody from 04.12.2015 to april 2016 when he was released on bail by order dated 05.04.2016 and since 12.07.2018 petitioner is in custody.6. it is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and he has a family to support including a four years old child and he is the sole bread earner of his family.7. without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom should be a family member, to the satisfaction of the trial court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to the following conditions:-"(i)... petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either bail appln. 1420/2019 page 2 of 3 the trial or the prosecution witnesses. (ii)... petitioner shall appear before the trial court as and when the matter is listed before the trial court. (iii)... petitioner shall furnish his as well as sureties’ mobile number and the permanent and residential address to the investigating officer/sho. (iv)... petitioner and the sureties shall keep their mobile numbers active. (v) in case of change of either the residential address or the mobile number of the petitioner or the sureties, petitioner shall duly intimate the same to the investigating officer/sho. petition is disposed of in the above terms. order dasti under signatures of the court master.6.7. sanjeev sachdeva, j july22 2019 st bail appln. 1420/2019 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

22. 07.2019 BAIL APPLN. 1420/2019 AMIT STATE versus ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Mr. Gurtinder Singh Gujral with Mr. Vinod Mangal, Advocates. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: For the Respondent: CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. SI Amolak, PS Swaroop Nagar. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

seeks regular bail in FIR No.728/2015 under Sections 186/353/3
IPC and Sections 27/
Arms Act, Police Station Swaroop Nagar. Subsequently, Section 427 IPC was added.

2. Allegations in the FIR are that information was received that some accused wanted in another case were seen in Swaroop Nagar. A trap was laid. It is alleged that the accused persons came in a car and when they were sought to be apprehended, they tried to flee from the spot and also fired shot at the police party. BAIL APPLN. 1420/2019 Page 1 of 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submits that all the witnesses in the subject case are police officers.

4. He further, submits that the petitioner was earlier released on bail on 05.04.2016 and thereafter was regularly appearing before the Court. However, on account of some advice he went to his village and missed appearing before the Court on 22.03.2018, 26.04.2018 and 29.05.2018. He was apprehended on 12.07.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had earlier remained in custody from 04.12.2015 to April 2016 when he was released on bail by order dated 05.04.2016 and since 12.07.2018 petitioner is in custody.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and he has a family to support including a four years old child and he is the sole bread earner of his family.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom should be a family member, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to the following conditions:-

"(i)... Petitioner

shall not do anything which may prejudice either BAIL APPLN. 1420/2019 Page 2 of 3 the trial or the prosecution witnesses. (ii)... Petitioner

shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is listed before the Trial Court. (iii)... Petitioner

shall furnish his as well as sureties’ mobile number and the permanent and residential address to the Investigating Officer/SHO. (iv)... Petitioner

and the sureties shall keep their mobile numbers active. (v) In case of change of either the residential address or the mobile number of the petitioner or the sureties, petitioner shall duly intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/SHO. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

7. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY22 2019 st BAIL APPLN. 1420/2019 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Amit vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition