Pardeep Gupta Vs. State

Pardeep Gupta vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 03, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/716339

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/716339
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: Sep 03, 2007
Case Number: Bail Appln. No. 1298/2007
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Section 439 - Bail--FIR lodged under sections 420, 468, 471 & 34 IPC--Seeking for preponment of date of hearing and challenged the dismissing of the application for seeking plea bargaining--Court granted bail to petitioner and set-aside the order of trial court and directed to recons...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 420, 468 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pardeep Gupta

Advocate Jitender Tyagi, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Sunil Kapoor, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 420, 468 and 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173
Reported In: 2007(99)DRJ198

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973section 439 - bail--fir lodged under sections 420, 468, 471 & 34 ipc--seeking for preponment of date of hearing and challenged the dismissing of the application for seeking plea bargaining--court granted bail to petitioner and set-aside the order of trial court and directed to reconsider the application for plea bargaining made by accused. - - 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. for preponment of date of hearing as well as bail application stand disposed of......seven years punishment. the request of plea bargaining is ought to be considered taking into account the role of the accused, and the nature of the offence etc. the trial court could not have rejected the application for plea bargaining on the ground that he was involved in section 120b ipc and therefore the request for plea bargaining is not available to him. the attitude of the trial court shows that trial court did not even read the provisions of chapter xxia before considering the application.3.1 consider that it is appropriate that the petitioner should be granted bail. the order dated 25th august, 2007, passed trial court is also set aside and trial court is directed to re-consider the application of plea bargaining made by accused in the light of provisions made in cr.p.c and not in a casual manner.4. the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. it is also directed that the trial court shall re-consider the application for plea bargaining made by accused.5. with the above observations both the application i.e. for preponment of date of hearing as well as bail application stand disposed of.6. dasti.

Full Judgment

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 9857/2007 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. No. 9856/2007 & Bail Appln. 1298/2007

1. This application is made on behalf of the petitioner for preponment of the date of hearing of the bail application. The earlier application for early hearing has already been disposed of vide order dated 6th August, 2007, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court for plea bargaining and giving directions to the trial court to entertain the application for plea bargaining.

2. The petitioner had approached the trial court for bail since he is in custody from 14th February, 2006 and is involved in a case under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC. A perusal of the order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by trial court, rejecting the plea bargaining, shows that the learned trial court had not bothered to look into provisions of Chapter XXIA of Cr.P.C meant for the purpose of plea bargaining and rejected the application on the ground that since the applicant is involved in an offence under Section 120B IPC and the role of the applicant was not lesser than the other co-accused. Prayer of plea bargaining can be made by an accused against whom a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been for offences punishable for seven years or less than seven years. None of the offences in which the petitioner has been booked attracted more than seven years punishment. The request of plea bargaining is ought to be considered taking into account the role of the accused, and the nature of the offence etc. The trial court could not have rejected the application for plea bargaining on the ground that he was involved in Section 120B IPC and therefore the request for plea bargaining is not available to him. The attitude of the trial court shows that trial court did not even read the provisions of Chapter XXIA before considering the application.

3.1 consider that it is appropriate that the petitioner should be granted bail. The order dated 25th August, 2007, passed trial court is also set aside and trial court is directed to re-consider the application of plea bargaining made by accused in the light of provisions made in Cr.P.C and not in a casual manner.

4. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. It is also directed that the trial court shall re-consider the application for plea bargaining made by accused.

5. With the above observations both the application i.e. for preponment of date of hearing as well as bail application stand disposed of.

6. Dasti.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2007 Same Parties Pardeep Gupta vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 420, 468 and 471...

Criminal