LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Advocate Dinesh Rajpurohit ( Advocate)     03 September 2011

Please i need judgement of supreme court or high courts beca

I need judgements for bail I applied for Bail Befor Hon'ble Bombay High Couirt, offence is U/s. 395 of I.P.C. i.e. Punishment for Dacaity, some arlicle recoverd at my instance, charge sheet has filed and sufficient custody granted to police. plz i need urgently a Judgement who will suport to me to get Bail to my Client.


 5 Replies



Crl. Misc. No. 47173-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 10.11.2006

Ahmad Nadeem



State of Haryana


Present: Mr. Ajay Saini, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Partap Singh, Senior D.A.G., Haryana.

* * *

Petitioner Ahmad Nadeem has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 546 dated 5.12.2005 under Sections 395, 120-B, 412 IPC, registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, District Gurgaon.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR.

In this case, on the complaint of the factory owner, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the allegation that on the day of occurrence, some unknown persons came to the company, locked two guards and two employees of the company and took away the leather goods, shirts and garments and cash on gunpoint in a vehicle. During the investigation, Surajbhan, Sonu and Chand Mian were found involved in the crime. The robbed articles i.e. 4105 leather pieces and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from the petitioner in the rented room in his possession. The petitioner has been charged for the offence under Sections 395, 120-B and 412 IPC. He is in custody since 22.12.2005.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that Chand Mian, against whom there are similar allegations, and the other accused have been granted regular bail by the trial court, therefore, the petitioner should also be granted bail.

As far as accused Chand Mian is concerned, his regular bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 27115-M of 2006. Thereafter, the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, has granted bail to Chand Mian on 27.5.2006, without noticing the order passed by this court. Therefore, this court has already issued show cause notice to accused Chand Mian for the cancellation of his bail. In spite of that, he has not appeared so far.

In view of the aforesaid facts and keeping in view the nature of the offence, the recovery of robbed articles effected from the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is likely to abscond from the trial, I am not inclined to grant him regular bail at this stage.


November 10, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE



Advocate Dinesh Rajpurohit ( Advocate)     03 September 2011

Thankyou sir ji .

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     03 September 2011

Pl go through MEHTRE judgment of SC for bails which most recent and is in files section.

Sandeep Aggarwal (Advocate)     10 September 2011

dinesh ji aap ka thank u to bekar hai. Jara Jor laga kar judgment read kare. S. Ganesan to kamaal ka Vakeel hai. Wah Bhai Wah. Ha Ha Ha hA

Advocate Dinesh Rajpurohit ( Advocate)     13 September 2011

Samdeep ji bat ye nhi he ki inka judgement mera kam aaya ya nahi but thanks iske ke liye ki atleast Ganesh je Kosish to ki ok ji

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register