CHANDERPATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The BAIL APPLN. 2170/2020, BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 and BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020 have been taken up together, in as much as, all the three applicants of the said applications are arrayed as accused in FIR No.140/2020, PS Begum Pur under Ss. 186/188/332/353/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on 13/5/2020 and all the three applicants seek the grant of anticipatory bail in relation thereto, submitting to the effect that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

(2.) Qua applicant named Chanderpati, vide order dtd. 14/8/2020 in BAIL APPLN. 2170/2020, it has been directed that she be not arrested subject to conditions that she would keep her mobile phone on at all times; would not leave the city, would not make any contact with the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, would not commit any offence whatsoever and would drop a PIN on the Google map so that her location was available to the Investigating Officer at all times. Likewise, the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020 namely Jitender @ Dola vide order dtd. 3/9/2020, has been granted protection from arrest subject to the same terms and conditions. There is nothing on the record put forth by the State to indicate that there has been any violation of the terms and conditions imposed on the applicants Chanderpati (the applicant of Bail Appln. No. 2170/2020) and Jitender @ Dola, (the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2487/2020) vide orders dtd. 14/8/2020 and 3/9/2020.

(3.) The applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 namely Karamvir, however, has not been granted any interim protection. This is so, in as much as, BAIL APPLN. 2424/2020 filed by the applicant thereof, Karamvir was the second application under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking the grant of anticipatory bail, the previous application of the said applicant i.e. Bail Appl. No.1298/2020 vide order dtd. 29/6/2020 having been declined without the grant of any such protection, as prayed.