Satender Pal Singh @ Twinkle v. State N.C.T. of Delhi

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

¶1This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim bail for a period of two months in case FIR No. 04/2006 under Section 387/506/34 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act and Section 3 & 4 of the MCOCA, 1999 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on the ground that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Mrs.Hardarshan Kaur,

aged about 78 years had suddenly developed heart problems (CAD Coronary Artery disease, CKD Chronic Kidney disease and DM Diabetic Mellitus) and was immediately taken to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in a critical condition on 6.9.2009 in Emergency Ward and has been admitted there vide IP No : 30468. She was diagnosed by the doctors of the Cardiology Department with CAD with double vessel disease.

¶2It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than three and a half years and that the condition of the mother of the petitioner is precarious and at this crucial juncture, the presence of the petitioner is essential.

¶3The present petition has been opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases, including MCOCA and that he has been taking bail on one ground or the other and in fact is in bail right from 31.5.2007. Even with respect to the treatment of his mother, Mrs. Hardarshan Kaur the bail was granted to the petitioner for the period commencing from 24.1.2009 to 3.2.2009. It has been stated that virtually from 31.5.2007 the petitioner had been availing interim bail and there is a possibility of misusing the interim bail by him. It has been further stated that no procedure/treatment of CAG/PTCA of his mother was got done earlier. It has also been submitted that there are other members in his family such as his wife, his elder brother, his nephews, two brothers-in-law, sister, his other relatives and servants to look after his wife and as such there is no emergency of his coming out on interim bail. It has

also been submitted that the petitioner is involved in public act of gambling and is one of the organizers of such activity.

¶4Directions were given to both the parties to place on record the number of cases which were pending against the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner through his wife which goes to show that the petitioner stands acquitted in case FIR No. 545/1998 under Section 121/121A/122I/23/120B ICP registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh. The judgment of acquittal has also been placed on record by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The two other cases bearing FIR No. 83/2004 under Section 186/353/34 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Hari Nagar and FIR No. 113/2004 under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 registered at Police Station Special Cell, NDR and the present case in which MCOCA Act has been invoked are pending trial.

¶5The petitioner is in jail for a period of three and a half years. No doubt, he has been granted interim bail on various occasions. The certificate placed on record from the medical institute which has been verified even by the prosecution and taking into consideration the cases which are now pending against the petitioner, I am of the view that there will be no harm if the petitioner is granted 10 days interim bail for enabling him to take care of his aged mother. Accordingly, the petitioner in this case is directed to be released on interim bail for a period of 10 days from the date of his release on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand

only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to the condition that he would cooperate with the prosecution in all pending matters and would not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him and would not in any manner try to influence any of the witnesses or would not indulge in any other criminal activity and would not leave the jurisdiction of Delhi. The petitioner shall surrender on the expiry of the period of interim bail and would not ask for any extention of interim bail. This order shall be operative only if the bail bond is presented within one from week from today.

¶6The petition stands disposed of.

¶7A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.

MOOL CHAND GARG, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 dc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Bail Application No. 1774/2009 % Date of reserve : 14.09.2009 Date of decision: 16.09.2009 SATENDER PAL SINGH @ TWINKLE …PETITIONER Through: Mr.K.K.Manan, Mr.S.S.Chauhan And Mr.Naveen Malhotra, Advocates Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ...RESPONDENT Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State along with SI Rakesh Malik, Special Cell FIR NO. 04/2006 U/S 387/506/34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act & Section 3 & 4 of MCOCA P.S. Special Cell, Distt. Special Branch CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?