Skip to main content
Bail Matters - Bail Case Type

STATEVsDEEPAK JAIN

CNR DLND01005835202321-
Patiala House Court - District sessions Court
delhi · Delhi (DL)
CASE DISPOSED
Contested--DISPOSED
Decision Date: 11th July 2023

TrustJury record updated 10 Oct 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
1177/2023
Registration Date
01 Jul 2023

Advocates

1

For Petitioner

For Respondent

    Not available

    Parties

    2

    Petitioner

    1. 1STATE

    Respondent

    1. 1DEEPAK JAIN

    Acts & Sections

    1
    Indian Penal Code · Sec 420

    Police / FIR Details

    Police Station
    Crime Branch-New Delhi
    FIR Number / Year
    42/2021

    Case History / Proceedings

    Case History
    Date: 03-07-2023
Business: Put up on 11.07.2023
Next Purpose: Misc./ Appearance
Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2023

Date: 11-07-2023
Business: Disposed off.
Nature Of Disposal: DISPOSED
Disposal Date: 11-07-2023

    Additional Case Details

    Additional Case Details
    Filing Number: 2168/2023
Filing Date: 01-07-2023
First Hearing Date: 03rd July 2023
Decision Date: 11th July 2023
Court Number And Judge: 21-

    Orders

    3
    Final Order 2
    11 Jul 2023
    Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: State vs. Deepak Jain
Bail Application No.117/2023
FIR No.42/2021
PS : Crime Branch
11.07.2023
Present : Sh.Dharam Chand, ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by
Sh.Ramit Sehrawat, ld. Counsel for complainant
along with complainant.
Sh.Rajeev Kumar Malik, ld. Counsel for accused.
SI Manoj in person.
It is submitted by complainant that he has received agreed
amount of Rs.40 lakhs under the settlement from the accused/
applicant and submits that he has no objection if bail application
of accused may be allowed in view of settlement. Statement of
ld. Counsel for complainant in this regard recorded.
In view of such statement given, accused is admitted to
bail upon furnishing of personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of ld. MM/
Duty MM as matter between the complainant and accused/
applicant stood settled in terms of settlement recorded before
Mediation Cell.
Application accordingly disposed off.
( Shailender Malik )
ASJ/NDD/PHC/ND/11.07.2023
-- 1 of 1 --
    Interim Order 1
    03 Jul 2023
    Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail application No. 1177/23
FIR No. 42/21
PS EOW
U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC
State v. Deepak Jain
03.07.2023
Present : Sh. Vikas Kumar, ld. Substitute PP for State.
Sh. Ramit Sehrawat, ld. Counsel for complainant
alongwith complainant in person.
Sh. Rajeev Kumar Malik, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant that
qua accused/applicant the settled amount of Rs.40 lakhs have already
been paid under mediation whereas this fact has been disputed on
behalf of prosecution/complainant. It is pointed out that overall
accused/applicant had undertook to pay Rs.57 lakhs and therefore,
Rs.17 lakhs are still to be paid. Whereas Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant submits that regarding other Rs.17 lakhs accused
Rinku and Dilshad had settled to pay. This fact has been disputed.
In view of above said situation, at this stage matter is now
being put up before the concerned court / Roster Judge for
consideration in accordance with law for 11.07.2023.
(Shailender Malik)
Link Judge/ASJ-03/PHC/ND/03.07.2023
-- 1 of 1 --
    Order 1
    03 Jul 2023
    Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail application No. 1177/23
FIR No. 42/21
PS EOW
U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC
State v. Deepak Jain
03.07.2023
Present : Sh. Vikas Kumar, ld. Substitute PP for State.
Sh. Ramit Sehrawat, ld. Counsel for complainant
alongwith complainant in person.
Sh. Rajeev Kumar Malik, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant that
qua accused/applicant the settled amount of Rs.40 lakhs have already
been paid under mediation whereas this fact has been disputed on
behalf of prosecution/complainant. It is pointed out that overall
accused/applicant had undertook to pay Rs.57 lakhs and therefore,
Rs.17 lakhs are still to be paid. Whereas Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant submits that regarding other Rs.17 lakhs accused
Rinku and Dilshad had settled to pay. This fact has been disputed.
In view of above said situation, at this stage matter is now
being put up before the concerned court / Roster Judge for
consideration in accordance with law for 11.07.2023.
(Shailender Malik)
Link Judge/ASJ-03/PHC/ND/03.07.2023
-- 1 of 1 --

    TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.