Sandeep Kumar v. State

ORDER %

17.07.2013 While entertainingthe pre-arrest bail application of petitioner-Kuldeep Sharma, the factual background of this case has been noted in orderof8'^ April,2013. BailApplicationNo.575/2013 Page1 Bail Application No.792/2013 j Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutorsubmits that petitionersin th^ afore-captionedtwo petitionshavejoinedthe investigationin terms of the last order. In view of the fact that complamant has not supported the pi^osecutioncase qua co-accusedof petitionerand the initial version of thp PGR official-SI Kamal Singh that informationregarding revolver being used in this incidentwas foundto be incorrect, interimorders of 8"" April, 2013 (in Bail AppHcationNo. 575/2013)and lO'^ May, 2013 (in Bail Application No. 792/2013) are made absolute. Withoutcommentingon the merits of this case, it is directedthat in the eventofarrest,petitioners-KuldeepSharma,son oflate Shri Jagdish Pi[asad Sharma and Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri Karan Pal Singh be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of ^0,000/- with one localsuretyeach inthe like amount,tothe satisfaction of the Arrestmg Officer/InvestigatingOfficer. Needless to say that if ki petitionersdo notjoin and cooperateinthe investigationofthis case, then respondent-State wouldbe at libertyto get this orderrevoked. With aforesaid observations,above captioned two petitions are disposed of Dasti. •^UMLGAtR) JUDGE JULY 17, 2013 r Application No.575/2013 BailApplication No.792/2013 Page 2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 575/2013 KULDEEP SHARMA Petitioner Through: Mr. RahulTyagi,Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta,Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with Inspector K.K. Tiwari + BAIL APPLN. 792/2013 SANDEEP KUMAR Petitioner Through: Through: Mr. RahulTyagi, Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with Inspector K.K. Tiwari CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR