BAIL APPLN./1875/2011 of GAURAV BANSAL Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 28 December 2011

$-2 to 4

*IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+

Bail Appl. No. 1874/2011

SOURAV BANSAL

PetitionerMr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Through

versus

+

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIRespondentThroughMs. Ritu Gauba, APP for theState.Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. forComplainant.Insp. Subhash Chander, P.S.Shahdara BailAppl. No. 1875/2011 and Crl. M.A No. 20082/2011GAURAV BANSAL

PetitionerThroughMr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus

+

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIRespondentThroughMs. Ritu Gauba, APP for theState.Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. forComplainant.Insp. Subhash Chander, P.S.Shahdara BailAppl. No. 1876/2011and Crl. M.A.No. 20083/2011

PetitionerMr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.

MAHESH KUMAR BANSALThrough

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIRespondentThroughMs. Ritu Gauba, APP for theState.

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. forComplainant.Insp. Subhash Chander, P.S.Shahdara CORAM;HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

ORDER%28.12.2011Notice.

Learned APP accepts notice.

These are three bail applications preferredby the father-in-law, Mahesh Kumar Bansal by the husband-Gaurav Bansal and byMr. Saurav Bansal who is the brother-in-lawof the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioners states he is not pressing the bailplea qua the father-in-law and the husband; he is restricting it to theunmarriedbrother-in-lawnamely Saurav Bansal;contentionis thatthereare generalallegationsagainstthe brother-in-lawwho has, been categorizedin the category of in-laws only and there is nospecific allegationagainst him. The parties i.e. the victim Neha hadbeen married to Guarav Bansal about one year ago; investigation isstill at the initialstage;the MLC Shows that the victim had beenbroughtto the hospitalwith 95 to 98% bums;the name of thebrother-in-law finds mentiond as the person who had brought her tothe hospital. Learned APP vehemently under instructionsfrom the 10states that there is no explanation as to why the victim laid burningin her home up to the stagewhen she had received 95 to 98% bums before she was taken to the hospital; the role of the brother-in-lawisalso under investigation; no ground is made out for bail at this stage.Bail applicationis rejected.

DECEMBER 28, 2011rb

INDERMEET KAUR, J