Daily Archives: April 11, 2015

direction NOT to arrest absconding husband IF he cooperates with investigation State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi

* applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

* the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE

******************************************************************

IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

Bail App. No. 2301

State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi

FIR No. 816/2014

U/s: 406/498A/34 IPC

PS: Tilak Nagar

01.04.2015

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.

Ld. counsel Shri G. P. Thareja for the applicant.

IO / SI Rajpal in person.

Ld. counsel Shri Lalit Kumar for the complainant.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

In reply to a specific Court query to the IO as to what is the status of investigation after the date 05.03.2015, when the previous application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the ld. ASJ (FTC) (West), it is informed by the IO and the counsel for the complainant that the applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

Before proceeding further, the applicant is directed to present himself before the IO on the date 04.04.2015 at 2.00 PM at the PS Tilak Nagar and the IO is directed to submit a report in relation to the investigation conducted for the date 07.04.2015, till which date, the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required and not tampering with the evidence in any manner.

(ANU MALHOTRA)

District & Sessions Judge (West)

Delhi/01.04.2015

PDF http://1drv.ms/1DT2G9x

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

How rape cases are settled every day while the world thinks ALL Indians are rapists !!

IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

Bail App. No. 1901
State vs. Narender Sawardekar
FIR No. 1619/2014
U/s: 376/420 IPC
PS: Tilak Nagar

01.04.2015

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.
Ld. counsel Shri Arvind Vashistha for the applicant.
IO / SI Anju Tyagi in person.

Complainant in person with ld. counsel Shri Saurabh Jain.

On behalf of the complainant and the applicant, at the outset, it is submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

An affidavit of the complainant Ms. Manju Singh has been submitted, submitting to the effect that she does not want to proceed against the applicant under Section 376/420 of the IPC.

As per the said affidavit, she was also living with the applicant and that the applicant has gone to Russia for work.

The complainant in reply to specific Court queries affirms on oath that she does not want to proceed against the applicant and the statement of the complainant to that effect has been recorded.

The IO has identified the complainant.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the State does not oppose the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, in view of the statement made on behalf of the complainant but submits that there are NBWs already issued against him, qua which, the applicant may seek redressal in accordance with law before the ld. Trial Court.

In view of the statement made by the complainant and there being nothing to disbelieve the same, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail on his filing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned, subject to the applicant joining the investigation as and when required and not leaving the country.

(ANU MALHOTRA)

District & Sessions Judge (West)

Delhi/01.04.2015

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist