* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 597/2019
MAHESH @ BANTY ….. Petitioner
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Jyoti Batra, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with
Insp.Anupam Bhushan, P.S.Bawana.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.419/2015 under Section
304B/Section498A/Section406/Section34 IPC, Police Station Bawana.
2. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the co accused are
already enlarged on bail. Petitioner has been in custody since
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the progress of
the trial is being delayed substantially and despite several
opportunities, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Madan Lal has not
appeared for completing his testimony.
BAIL APPLN.597/2019 Page 1 of 3
4. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court had fixed the date
13.12.2018 for recording the testimony of the IO, however, on the
said date he was not present. Case was adjourned to 13.02.2019 when
though he was present but was discharged unexamined. Thereafter the
matter was fixed for 14.02.2019 when the IO was not present and had
sent a request for adjournment, which was declined and bailable
warrants to secure the presence of the IO was issued, returnable for
5. Learned counsel submits that on 05.04.2019, on an application
filed by the petitioner, matted was adjourned to 08.04.2019 inter-alia
for examining the IO as well, however, on 08.04.2019 the IO was
once again not present and case was adjourned to 13.05.2019. Learned
counsel submits that on 13.05.2019 request for adjournment was made
on the premise that he was busy in election duty. Learned counsel
submits that elections in Delhi were held on 12.05.2019. Case was
adjourned to 14.05.2019 when the IO appeared but stated that he was
not well and as such his deposition could not be recorded and the
matter now stands adjourned to 09.08.2019 for his evidence.
6. Learned counsel submits that the progress of the case has been
substantially delayed and petitioner has already suffered incarceration
of more than 3½ years.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view the fact that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of
BAIL APPLN.597/2019 Page 2 of 3
over 3½ years and the statement of the IO has not been completed for
over 8 months, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.
8. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required
in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 22, 2019
BAIL APPLN.597/2019 Page 3 of 3