Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 03 SC CK 0026

Ashok Dhingra vs N.C.T. of Delhi

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 3 March 2000 · Citation: (2000) 3 ACR 1917 : AIR 2000 SC 3537 : (2000) AIRSCW 3246 : (2000) 7 JT 350 : (2000) 9 SCC 533

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. B. Shah, J · K. T. Thomas, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2000 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 3883 of 1999)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 370 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent and Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned senior Counsel for the complainant, we pass the following order

3.

The offence now alleged against the Appellant is u/s 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He is alleged to have cheated a Japanese national in a whopping sum exceeding Rs. 65 Lacs. These are of course prima facie circumstances not entitling him to be released on bail. But on the other side we noticed that he was in custody from 5.7.1999 to 10.12.1999 and, therefore, to continue to detain him during the pre-trial stage may not be in the interest of justice. Therefore we per mit him to continue on bail as per the interim order passed by us on 10.12.1999, if he would abide by the following conditions:

1.

He shall report at the Office of the Crime Branch, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi on all alternate days between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.

2.

He will not leave the limits of the State of Delhi without permission from the trial court;

3.

He shall surrender his passport within one week to the trial court; and

4.

He shall not in any manner either intimidate or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

4.

If he is willing to abide by the above conditions, he should file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court within two weeks from today.

5.

If the Respondent-State finds for any valid reason that Appellant is missing his bail we permit the Respondent to move for cancellation of the bail as provided u/s 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the trial is to get delayed on account of the delay in apprehending the co-accused, it is open to the trial court to split up the case as against this Appellant and proceed therewith, so that, it can be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. If the trial is delayed on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the Appellant, that itself can be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.