Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER

01.07.2013 Petitionersare the husband and brother-in-lawof the deceased,who Page I /• 3> are seeking bail in FIR No.72//2011, under Sections 498/304-B/34 of/PC registered at P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi. The trial of the aforesaid case is at its fag end as out of 17 witnesses, the deposition of 14 witnesses has been already recorded. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel had pointed out that parents of the deceased have been already recalled for 2"^^ July, 2013 for their re-examination in respect of certain documents and with the entertaining of prosecution application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., de novo trial would take place. It was urged by learned counsel for petitioners' that petitioners are in custody since February, 2011 and in view of de novo trial taking place, the trial of this case would be prolonged by another two years and so. Apart from merits, petitioners seek bail on the ground of de novo trial. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State, submits that parents of the deceased have been already summoned for 2"^^July, 2013 and they can be cross-examinedby additionalaccusedas well and instead of appreciating the substantial evidence already recorded, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to complete the recording of the evidence within a period of six months as there is clinching evidence against petitioners and so they do not deserve bail. Upon hearing both the sides and on cursory perusal the evidence recorded, this Court finds that at the fag end of the trial, instead of appreciating the evidence recorded to consider whether petitioners/accused persons are entitled to bail or not, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to conclude the recording of the evidence within a period of four months by giving shortest possible dates and to re-examine only those witnesses whom petitioners wish to cross-examine. In case prosecution fails Page 2 u to produce the witnesses sought to be cross-examinedby petitioners,then petitionersshall be entitledto applyfor bail afresh. With aforesaid directions, both the applications are disposed of Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to apprise the trial court of this order forthwith. jUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 01, 2013 s Page 3

* m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 983/2013 SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Through: versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: Petitioner Mr. SanjayJain, Mr. VinayAroraand Ms. Rushika Bhan, Advocates Respondent Mr. MukeshGupta,AdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor Respondent-Statewith SI Uma Datt, P.S. Mangol Puri Mr. Counsel(appearancenot given) for respondent No.2 + BAIL APPLN. 984/2013 SHAILENDERKUMARGUPTA Petitioner Through: Mr. SanjayJain, Mr. Vinay Aroraand Ms. Rushika Bhan, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: Respondent Mr. MukeshGupta,AdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor Respondent-Statewith SI Uma Datt, P.S. Mangol Puri Mr. Counsel(appearancenot given) for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %