BAIL APPLN./2086/2020 of SARABJEET SINGH @ LUCKY @ AVNEET SINGH Vs STATE
Parties
- SINGH (PETITIONER)
- STATE (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (16)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
- BAIL APPLN./2949/2025 of VIMLESH Vs THE STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) (2025)
- CRL.A./211/2022 of GULFISHA FATIMA Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI (2025)
- CRL.A./677/2022 of ATHAR KHAN Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2025)
- CRL.A./271/2022 of SHIFA UR REHMAN Vs STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY PS CRIME BRANCH BEING INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL CELL (2025)
- TEST.CAS./55/2015 of MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS Vs STATE & OTHERS (2023)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ BAIL APPLN. 2086/2020
SARABJEET SINGH @ LUCKY @ AVNEET
SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Kaushal Thakur, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Saris Khan, PS Maurice Nagar.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R R % 07.08.2020
[Hearing held through video conferencing]
CRL.M.A. 10595/2020
1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 2086/2020
2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that he be released on interim bail for period of thirty days on the ground that his father is required to undergo surgery at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. It is seen that since October, 2019, the petitioner has filed seven bail applications, the last of which was filed on 22.07.2020.
The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s bail application by an order
dated 10.07.2020 because the inquiries revealed that the concerned doctor had stated that the surgery may be deferred for couple of months.
4.Mr Nayak, learned APP states that on prior occasion, the petitioner
had sought and was granted interim bail for surgery of his mother but no such surgery was conducted. He further submits that the matter is at the stage of final arguments and the evidence against the petitioner is overwhelming.
5.In view of the above, this Court does not consider it apposite to allow the present application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
6.At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Trial Court shall hear the final arguments on the scheduled date by video conferencing if normal functioning of the court is not resumed.
AUGUST 07, 2020 MK
VIBHU BAKHRU, J