RAJ KUMAR v. STATE
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Delhi judgment dated 2020-06-12. RAJ KUMAR v. STATE. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR 12. 06. 2020 17:42 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1153/2020 & CRL. M. A. 7312/2020 RAJ KUMAR ..... Applicant Through: Mr. Saurabh Jamb, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP. Mr. Devender Hora, Advocate for the Complainant. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 12. 06. 2020 1. This hearing has been held by video-conferencing. 2. The FIR in this case has been registered under Sections 376D, 354D, 506, 328 and 34 IPC. The Applicant in this case seeks extension of two months th of interim bail, which was granted to him on 8 May, 2020. The ground on which the Applicant seeks extension is on the basis of various medical records of his own and of his wife. On the last date, it was submitted to this Court that the Petitioner has been advised 14 days quarantine, and his COVID-19 test has th also been conducted.
Under these circumstances, on 8 June, 2020, the Court had extended bail till today and had called for the status report from the ld. APP. 3. Ms. Rajni Gupta, ld. APP has today presented the status report, which shows quite a shocking state of events. The Complainant has also been served and is represented by Mr. Hora, ld. counsel. Both the ld. APP and the Complainant’s counsel are vehemently opposing the extension of bail. It is submitted by ld. APP that the Applicant has relied upon completely fabricated medical records, and in fact, the Sessions Court had also taken a serious view of the matter and had directed registering of a case due to submission of fake Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:12. 06. 2020 17:12 medical certificates. 4. In the status report, it is further submitted that Dr.
Sanjay Garg, the Director of Garg Hospital, 8-9 AGR Enclave, Opposite Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in fact stated that the wife of the Applicant was not admitted but had th only come in the OPD on 20 May, 2020. It is the Applicant’s case that the Applicant was advised isolation for 14 days. However, the CMO, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichdipur has given a report that the Applicant was not admitted in that hospital and the COVID-19 report of the Applicant is also negative. 5. Today, Mr. Saurabh Jhamb, ld. counsel submits that the Applicant, though tested negative, has been again advised quarantine for 14 days by Irwin Hospital. 6. In view of the fact that the medical records produced by the Applicant, both in respect of himself and his wife are suspicious in nature and that the verification done by the IO has shown that the Applicant’s stand is not credible, this Court is not inclined to extend the interim bail. The Applicant shall accordingly surrender at the Central Jail No.
4, Tihar by 11:00 am tomorrow itself. The IO shall be in touch with the Applicant to ensure that there is no flight risk. 7. This order be communicated to the Jail Superintendent today itself. If the authorities feel that there is any need to keep the Applicant in isolation or in quarantine, the same shall be done within the jail premises itself. 8. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JUNE 12, 2020/Rahul Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:12. 06. 2020 17:12
Source: High Court of Delhi. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.