TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r regular bail was filed on 17th May, 2016. Obviously, since by that time investigation was going on and considering the nature of allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail applications. When the second bail applications were filed which came up on 9th June, 2016 both Pooja and Jyoti had spent more than one month in custody and no more custodial interrogation was warranted as the time for police custody remand was over. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order also noted that both Pooja and Jyoti were married women having minor children to support and to be looked after and were no more required for custodial interrogation, thus imposing appropriate conditions to allay the apprehensions raised on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. Both these applications are being disposed off together vide this common order, as they arise out of same FIR. Arguments on both the bail applications heard. Replies perused. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it may be noted that similar bail applications of the applicants were dismissed by this Court on 17.05.2016. Thereafter, similar bail applications were again preferred on behalf of the applicants before Sessions Court which came up for hearing on 31.05.2016. On said date, IO had submitted before the Court that he shall be filing the chargesheet in this case on or before 06.06.2016. In view of the said submission, counsel of applicants fairly withdrew both the bail applications with liberty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also been registered at PS Prashant Vihar against the complainant in this regard. He further argued that the applicants are no more required for any custodial interrogation. Ld. Counsel of applicants had also argued that there is further detention of 22 days of applicants in this case has passed after dismissal of their previous bail applications on merits. He further argued that the applicants are married women having minor children, who are suffering a lot due to continuous and long incarceration of applicants behind the jail. Therefore, both the applicants deserve to be released on bail. Opposing, Ld. Additional PP assisted by counsel of complainant, argued that there are serious allegations against both the applicants who are named in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt for complainant to depose freely during the course of trial. He also placed on record copy of MLCs of complainant prepared at BSA Hospital on 08.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 with regard to subsequent incidents which allegedly took place on said dates for which FIR nos. 392/16 and 437/16 were registered at PS Prashant Vihar. Counsel of complainant further argued that grandmother of these two applicants lodged false FIR bearing No. 248/16 under Section 451/323/506/34 IPC against Chinky who is one of the prosecution witnesses in the present FIR, at the instance of these two applicants and their family members. He, therefore, urged that bail applications are liable to be dismissed. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the respectful subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the discussion made herein above and the period of incarceration of the applicants behind the jail, the applicants/accused namely Jyoti and Pooja are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 20,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld MM/Link MM/Ld Duty MM and subject to the following conditions:- i. That the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. ii. That they shall not indulge into similar offence or any other offence in the event of their release on bail; ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cality and the quarrel took place over the parking of the vehicle. The situation is peculiar because it is not the solitary incident as prior thereto also in the year 2013 a quarrel had taken place in this regard and the matter was compromised between the parties but then again the complainant was attacked by the applicants and their family members on 27.11.2015. When she did not agree for compromise, present incident took place resulting in registration of present FIR. That being so, petitioners do not deserve the indulgence of this Court for getting the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, all the applications are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on merits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
