|
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused languishing in jail for 181 days with the allegations of cheating, forgery etc.
While granting bail, Justice Yogesh Khanna noted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the alleged cheated amount of Rs Eight Lacs before the Trial Court which shall be kept in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) to be renewed automatically every year. The FIR registered against the accused was under sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code with the allegations of cheating, forgery etc. The petitioner Gaurav Verma has moved the bail plea on the ground that the investigation has been completed, a supplementary Charge sheet has been filed and after completing the statutory mandatory period of 180 days, the accused gets indefeasible right to get default bail under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and pendency of further investigation is not a relevant factor while granting bail. Appearing for the petitioner, it is contended by Advocate Sumit Gehlot from Fidelegal Advocates and Solicitors that the accused is not required for further investigation, the commencement of the trial is not likely to take place in the near future and continued detention of the accused who has been languishing in the prison for 181 days at the pre-trial stage does not appear to be warranted and is entitled to bail. In the bail petition, on April 21, the Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna, High Court issued notice and directed the state (NCT of Delhi) to file a status report and also directed the Tihar Jail to file the latest Nominal Roll (NR) of petitioner and listed the matter after six days on April 27. The Delhi High Court in an order passed on April 27, after hearing arguments, allowed the bail petition and admitted the petitioner to bail on furnishing personal bond with surety to the satisfaction of the Trail Court (District Court Rohini) and further directed that the petitioner shall furnish his contact/address details to the investigation officer/SHO concerned and shall keep his mobile location app open all the time. The petitioner was represented through Advocate Sumit Gehlot (Advocate) from Fidelegal Advocates and Solicitors. (ANI)
|
