NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph โ€” Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

CRL.REV.P./1224/2024 of KRISHAN KUMAR @ HARSH @ HARSHU Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Court
Delhi High Court
Decision date
2024-10-23

Parties

Cites (1)

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

Show all Body

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.REV.P. 1224/2024

KRISHAN KUMAR @ HARSH @ HARSHU

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Asis Mishra & Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State. SI Rajendra Kumar, PS Crime Branch.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R R20.12.2024

% CRL.M.A. 38677/2024.

1.The present application is filed by the petitioner seeking interim protection.

2.By the present petition, the petitioner had challenged issuance of non bailable warrants (NBWs).

3.This Court by order dated 23.10.2024, noting the undertaking of the petitioner that he would appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on 25.10.2024, had cancelled the

NBWs. It was made clear that in case petitioner fails to appear, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take appropriate action.

4.Today, it is contended that the petitioner could not appear on the said date and is now willing to join the investigation.

5.Petitioner claims that he was unwell and, therefore, could not appear before the Investigating Officer.

6.Nothing has been filed with the present application to indicate that the petitioner could not join the investigation on account of his illness.

7.No request was also made by the petitioner at any stage to the Investigating Officer for fixing another date for investigation. 8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that for the reasons of petitioner not joining the investigation, the proceedings under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have already been initiated against the petitioner.

9.Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to accede to the request of the petitioner.

10.The application is, therefore, dismissed.

DECEMBER 20, 2024

AMIT MAHAJAN, J