Sandeep vs.the State

Sandeep vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 08, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1224587

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/1224587
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Aug 08, 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

Sandeep

Respondent

The State

Excerpt

.....to hand over the charge, which he did on 14.10.2018 and subsequently he was implicated in the subject fir.4. learned counsel further submits that in case the equipment was removed from the towers, the towers would stop functioning and it would immediately alert the telecom companies and apparently from the fir no such thing happened.5. by order dated 10.12.2018, petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.6. learned app under instructions submits that petitioner has joined investigation and investigation is complete and there is no further requirement of the petitioner to join investigation.7. without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, i am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.8. accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/io/sho shall release the petitioner on bail, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rs. 15,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting bail appln. 2913/2018 page 2 of 3 officer/investigating officer/sho concerned.... petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.... petitioner shall join the investigation as and when so required by the io.9. petition is allowed in the above terms.10. order dasti under signatures of the court master. sanjeev sachdeva, j august8 2019 rk bail appln. 2913/2018 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

08. 08.2019 BAIL APPLN. 2913/2018 SANDEEP THE STATE versus ........ Petitioner

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

: Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with ASI Kuldeep, P.S.Paschim Vihar. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.605/2018 under Section 381 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar.

2. Allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner was employed to take care of 18 telecom towers of the service provider to telecom companies. He is alleged to have last attended his office on 14.10.2018. Thereafter when inspection was carried out of the said towers after 2-3 days, it transpired that several battery equipment as well as telecom equipment was missing. Complaint was lodged and the FIR was registered. BAIL APPLN. 2913/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that petitioner had asked for a raise in salary and he was asked to fill up a service bond and since he declined to do the same, he was directed to hand over the charge, which he did on 14.10.2018 and subsequently he was implicated in the subject FIR.

4. Learned counsel further submits that in case the equipment was removed from the towers, the towers would stop functioning and it would immediately alert the telecom companies and apparently from the FIR no such thing happened.

5. By order dated 10.12.2018, petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.

6. Learned APP under instructions submits that petitioner has joined investigation and investigation is complete and there is no further requirement of the petitioner to join investigation.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting BAIL APPLN. 2913/2018 Page 2 of 3 officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.... Petitioner

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

shall join the investigation as and when so required by the IO.

9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST8 2019 rk BAIL APPLN. 2913/2018 Page 3 of 3

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