* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2895 OF 2007 Reserved on : 14.01.2008 % Date of decision : 18.01.2008 ABHIJIT SINGH ... ... ... ... ... ... ... PETITIONER Through : Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. - V E R S U S - STATE OF DELHI ... ... ... ... ... ... ...RESPONDENT Through : Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The present case is one of road-rage and as per the F.I.R. Registered (being F.I.R. No. 432 of 2007 dated 11.11.2007), the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted blows on the brother of the complainant with a baseball bat apart from inflicting similar blows on the car of the complainant. 2. The present application for anticipatory bail was filed after a Bail Application No. 2895 of 2007 Page No.1 of 3 similar request was declined by the Sessions Court in terms of the Order dated 01.12.2007. It may be noticed that a second application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 19.12.2007 on the ground that such a second anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable before the same Court, as there were no fresh circumstances which had come to light in the meantime. 3. In the present bail application, notice was issued on 28.12.2007 recording detailed reasons as to why interim bail has been granted on certain terms and conditions. It was also recorded that the petitioner had, in fact, filed the first complaint. The interim bail was granted on the following conditions :- “1. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required. 2. The key of the accidental car involved in the accident shall be produced by the petitioner within three days at the concerned police station. 3. The petitioner is directed not to be seen anywhere near the complainant or the family members of the complainant within a distance of 200 meters. 4. The complainant shall not make any calls or contact otherwise the complainant or any family member of the complainant.” 4. The petitioner is, thus, enjoying the protection of interim bail on Bail Application No. 2895 of 2007 Page No.2 of 3 the terms and conditions as aforesaid. 5. Learned APP appearing for the State was asked as to whether the petitioner had joined the investigation. The answer to the same was given in the affirmative. On a specific query being posed, it was stated that the charge-sheet was ready and no further custodial interrogation was necessary. 6. Since no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, the petitioner is granted bail on the same terms and conditions as aforesaid and the petition is accordingly disposed of. JANUARY 18, 2008 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. madan Bail Application No. 2895 of 2007 Page No.3 of 3