HARISH CHANDER Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Bail Application 1338/2005: The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is deserving grant of bail on several counts. Firstly, he has already been in custody since 1.3.2005 and the challan has also been filed on 13.4.2005. He further submits thai the present petitioner although named in the FIR was not given any role of cheating in the statement contained in the FIR. It is only in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 1.3.2005, about a month- and-a-half after the incident, that the petitioner is sought to be implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, not at all concerned with the transaction that was taking place between the complainant and the main accused; It is only at the instance of the complainant that the petitioner was called and was made a party to the transaction. This fact is clearly disclosed in the FIR itself.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail and relied mainly on the supplementary statement made by the complainant. He also made a reference to the disclosure statement made by the present petitioner in which it is alleged that the petitioner had facilitated the transaction on being enticed by the co-accused, Kunwar Pal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, requested the Counsel for the State to also read out the disclosure statement of co-accused, Kunwar Pal and upon the same being read out this story was not corroborated.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the Counsel for the party, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. This application stands dispose dof. Dasti. Application disposed of.