The Delhi High Court on Friday directed an accused to keep his mobile number operational at all times during the pendency of the trial, and remain available as a condition while granting him bail in connection with an assault case.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri granted bail to one accused Sushil, asking him to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The court directed him not to leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned court.
"The applicant shall remain available on mobile number (which belongs to his father), which he undertakes to keep operational at all times during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of residential address or contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court," the court said.
It also directed him to regularly appear before the concerned court during the pendency of the trial and not directly, indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
Delhi Police has opposed the bail plea saying that the present applicant along with his brother Surender alias Pappu had beaten the complainant with a baseball bat on the head and leg.
The prosecution further submitted that while the applicant was in custody his brother Surender threatened the complainant and opened fire at his house subsequent to which, FIR No. 349/2021 under Sections 336/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Mundka, Delhi was registered. The prosecution, however, submitted that the applicant is not involved in any other case.
Counsel for the applicant Sushil, advocate Ravi Drall submitted that the incident of threatening the complainant relates to his brother Surender alias Pappu and not to the present applicant.
Advocate Drall, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since April 15, 2021. He submitted that the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed and the applicant is no longer required for the purpose of custodial interrogation.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor