CRL.M.C. 802/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.802/2010 Decided on 20.08.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : MITHAI LAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. A.C. David, Adv. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State. Mr. S. Shahi, Adv. for R-2. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 26.2.2010, passed by the learned ASJ in FIR No.241/2009, under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC registered with PS R.K. Puram, New Delhi, by which the bail application of the accused, Sunil Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased daughter of the petitioner herein, was allowed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned trial court adopted a very casual approach while deciding the bail application of the respondent No.2. It is further stated that it was not safe to admit the respondent No.2 on bail as he may not be available at a later stage, CRL.M.C. 802/2010 Page 2 of 3 particularly, since the accused No.4, Smt. Leela Wati (mother of respondent No.2) could not be arrested by the police for a long period of time and had to be declared a proclaimed offender by the trial court. It is lastly stated that admitting the respondent No.2 to bail would result in threatening the public witnesses and harassing them. 3. Pertinently, the petitioner has also assailed the order of bail granted in favour of Ram Niwas, father of the respondent No.2, father-in- law of the deceased daughter of the petitioner, on almost the same grounds. By a separate order passed today, the aforesaid petition has been rejected. Even in the present case, this Court is not persuaded by the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that while granting bail to the respondent No.2, the learned ASJ made the same conditional. The respondent No.2 was directed not to visit the area where the complainant party resided. He was further directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the court and also to report to the concerned police station on every Monday at 10.00 AM. Further, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the complainant was represented before the learned ASJ through the same counsel who is representing him in the present matter. So, it is not a case where the stand of the complainant was not taken into consideration by the learned ASJ while passing the impugned order dated 26.2.2010. A perusal of the order shows that the counsel for the State was also duly heard. 4. Learned APP for the State submits that the respondent No.2 has been adhering to all the conditions of bail as imposed in the order CRL.M.C. 802/2010 Page 3 of 3 dated 26.2.2010 and the State is not aggrieved by the order of grant of bail to the respondent No.2. On inquiry, the learned APP for the State also confirms that there has not been any complaint of influencing or threatening the public witnesses on the part of the respondent No.2 for cancellation of the bail order operating in his favour. He further submits that the case is at advance stage where evidence of four of the witnesses has already been recorded and the cross-examination of the PW-4 is listed on 3.9.2010. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the trial is stated to be at an advance stage of recording evidence of the remaining witnesses of the prosecution, apart from the material witnesses, whose deposition is almost complete, and in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out any attempt on the part of the respondent No.2 of threatening the witnesses, mis-using his liberty or tampering with the evidence and further as there is no complaint of the State against the respondent No.2 of non-adherence to the conditions of bail imposed on him, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order granting bail to the respondent No.2. The order of the ASJ is upheld being neither perverse, nor arbitrary. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (HIMA KOHLI) AUGUST 20, 2010 JUDGE sk