BAIL APPLN./1874/2011 of SOURAV 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

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 +Bail Appl. No. 1875/2011 and Crl. M.A. No. 20082/2011

GAURAV 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 Bail Appl. No. 1876/2011 and Crl. M.A.No. 20083/2011

MAHESH KUMAR BANSALPetitionerThroughMr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.

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 apphcationspreferredby the father-in-law, Mahesh Kumar Bansal, by the husband-Gaurav Bansal and byMr. SauravBansalwho is the brother-in-lawof the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioners states he is not pressing the bailplea qua the father-in-lawand the husband;he is restrictingit to theunmarriedbrother-in-lawnamely Saurav Bansal; contention is thatthere are general allegations against the brother-in-law who hasbeen categorized in the category of in-laws only and there is nospecificallegation against him. The parties i.e. the victim Neha hadbeen married to Guarav Bansal about one year ago; investigationisstill at the initial stage; the MLC Shows that the victim had beenbrought to the hospitalwith 95 to 98% burns; the name of thebrother-in-lawfinds mentiond as the person who had brought her tothe hospital. Learned APP vehemently under instructions from the 10states that there is no explanationas to why the victim laid burningin her home up to the stagewhen she had received 95 to 98% burns before she was taken to the hospital; the role of the brother-in-law isalso under investigation; no ground is made out for bail at this stage.Bail applicationis rejected.

INDERMEETKAUR, J

DECEMBER 28, 2011rb