Poonam Sayal; Dhruv Kapoor; Mariyam v. State

Delhi High Court · 24 Apr 2019 · 2019:DHC:7340
Mukta Gupta
BAIL APPLN.2198/2018; BAIL APPLN.2199/2018; BAIL APPLN.2259/2018
2019:DHC:7340
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in an assault and theft case upon the parties reaching a principal settlement, subject to conditions and potential modification if settlement fails.

Full Text
Translation output
$-8 to 10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.2198/2018 & Crl.M.B. 1497/2018
POONAM SAYAL
Represented by:
VERSUS
STATE
Petitioner Mr.Rikki Gupta,Mr.Aman Singh Brar,Advs.
Respondent Ms.Rajni Gupta,APP with SI Sandeep KumarPS VasantKunj(S)
Ms.Panitra Kaur,Adv.for complainant.
BAIL APPLN.2199/2018 & Crl.M.B. 1498/2018
DHRUV KAPOOR
VERSUS
STATE
Petitioner Mr.Rikki Gupta,Mr.Aman Singh Brar,Advs.
Ms.Rajni Gupta,APP with SI
BAIL APPLN.2259/2018 & Crl.M.B. 1539/2018
MARIYAM -Petitioner Represented by: Mr.AbhijitMittal,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE
Mr.Ashok Garg,APP with SI BAILAPPLNs.2198/2018,2199/2018&2259/2018 page1 of3
2019:DHC:7340 o
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
24.04.2019
ORDER

1. By these petitions the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 211/2018 under Sections 323/356/379/354B/506/34 IPG registered at PS VasantKunj South.

2. The allegations in the complaint by Ms. Meera Syal are that Ms. Poonam Sayal,her son Dhruv Kapoor and one domestic helper assaulted her and snatched her purse containing ?3 lakhs and a mobile phone. They also unleashed the dog upon her lady attendantnamely Karuna.

3. During the course of investigation medical examination of the complainant and Karuna was got conducted and their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. Since the parties were related, this Court referred the disputes between the parties to mediation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and complainant state that the parties have now settled the matter, terms ofsettlement have already been decided,howeverthe parties have still to sign the terms ofsettlement.

6. In view of the fact that the parties have principally arrived at a settlement,this Courtdeems itfit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is therefore directed that in the event ofarrest the petitioners be released on bail on theirfurnishing a personalbond in the sum of?25,000/- each with BAIL APPLNs.2198/2018,2199/2018 &2259/2018 page2of[3] -fi one surety bond each ofthe like amount to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned. It is however clarified that in case the parties do not act on the settlement arrived at between them,they would be entitled to seek modification ofthe present order.

7. Petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.

8. Order dasti.