9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2002, passed by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, cancelling the bail of the petitioners in the case FIR No. 780/2001, under Sections 406/498-A, IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. 2. Prosecution allegation in brief are that younger brother of the petitioners, Sachin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 18th January, 2002, taking into consideration the report of the police that petitioners failed to join investigation as well as report lodged by the complainant at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cancelled the bail of both the petitioners. This order is under challenge. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for State as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission in the College, on the basis of fabricated certificates and that after marriage when the complainant and her husband went for honeymoon at Singapore, she was caught on the allegations of stealing some articles from a famous store and was fined US $ 2000. It is thus argued that the allegations against the petitioners of alleged threats and refusal of notices are totally false. 4. In reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion. Let the same be taken on record. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute that the petitioners after arrest were granted regular bail by the court concerned; they are residing at Anand Niketan and complainant/respondent No. 2 is residing somewhere at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. As held by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathsingh v. State of Gujarat 1984CriLJ160 , very cogent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
