% . 4-3&6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Date of hearing and Order: March 05' 2OLO Bail Application No. 86 of 2O1O Satender s/o Ramesh Chand Petitioners Through: Mr. Hans Raj Arora, Advocate VCTSUS The State (NCT of Delhi) Respondent Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Bail Application No. 294 of 2O1O Bhushan s/o Leele Singh Petitioners Through: Mr. Hans Raj Arora, Advocate versus The State (NCT of Delhi) Respondent Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for State. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 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? No , Bail Application Nos. 86/2010 & 294/2010 Page 4 Signing Date:01.08.2024 16:52:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified \\, SUNIL GAUR' I. (ORALI 1. Petitioners are said seeking pre-arrest bail 4s2 | 323 | 43s | 32s | 3 4t | 3 4 Timarpur, Delhi. to be students of class xth and Xlth and are in FIR No. 239 of 2009, under Sections of the lPC, registered at Police Station Z. Sh. R.N. Vats, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State confirms that the petitioners have joined the investigation of this case. 3. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioners would be appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and that they would not indulge in any such incident in future and an undertaking to this effect would be furnished by way of affidavits of petitioners and their respective father along with the bail bonds to the Arresting Officer concerned. 4. Without commenting on the merits of this case, interim order of 18th January, 2010, and 16th February,20L0, are made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners- Satender, Son of Ramesh Chand and Bhushan, son of Leele Singh, be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees fifteen thousand each, with Surety of Bail Application Nos. 86/2010 A.294/2010 Page 5 their respective fathers in the like amount with undertaking in the q' _/ aforesaid terms, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 5. petitioners are directed to abide by the conditions prescribed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and it is made clear that in case they are found to be misusing the concession of pre-arrest bail afforded to them by this Court, then the State would be at liberty to get this order revoked. 6. Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of. March 05, 2010 rs Bail Application Nos. 86/2010 & 294/2010 Page 6