Amit Rawal v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · 22 Feb 2019 · 2019:DHC:7338
Sanjeev Sachdeva
BAIL APPLN.1416/2018
2019:DHC:7338
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused under Sections 498A, 406, 34, and 313 IPC, emphasizing their cooperation with investigation and near completion of the probe.

Full Text
Translation output
A
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1416/2018
AMITRAWAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.K.Sharma,Adv.
VERSUS
THESTATE(NCT OFDELHI) Respondent
Through; Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Suresh Pal,PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
BAIL APPLN.1417/2018
URMILADEVI Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.K.Sharma,Adv.
VERSUS
THESTATE(NCTOFDELHI) Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State
BAIL APPLN.1421/2018
OMPRAKASH SINGH Petitioner
Through; Mr.D.K.Sharma,Adv.
VERSUS
THESTATE(NCTOFDELHI) Respondent
BAIL APPLN.1416/2018&other connected matters
2019:DHC:7338
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER o/o 22.02.2019
JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners, seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.70/2018 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG, Police Station Keshav Puram. Subsequentlyduringinvestigation.Section313IPG hasbeenadded.

2. Learned counselforthe petitionerssubmitsthatpetitioners have been falsely implicated and they have cooperated with the investigation and haveeven offered toreturn all articles.

3. By order dated 03.07.2018,petitioners were given interim bail subjecttojoiningtheinvestigation.

4. Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that petitioners have joined investigation and had cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that petitioner had even brought all the articles which were admittedly in their power and possession for return to the complainant however, complainant declined to accept those articles. However, one Mahindra XUV vehicle, which was alleged to have been given to the husband by the girl side was returned and the documents thereofhave already been transferred in the name ofthe complainant. I

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainantsubmits that all the articles, which were given by the girl side have not yet been returned and whatwasoffered to bereturned wasnotin afitcondition to betaken.He submitsthatthe MahindraXUV wassold andthe sale proceeds were collected by the husband in cash and he gave his chequeforthesaid amount.Thisisdisputed bythePetitioners.

6. Learned AFP for the State submits that petitioners havejoined investigation and investigation is nearly completed and as of now petitionersare notrequiredtojointheinvestigation.

7. Without commenting on the merits ofthe case and keeping in view the totality offacts and circumstancesofthe case,Iam satisfied thatpetitionershave madeoutacaseforgrantofanticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly,intheeventofarrest,onthe petitionersfurnishing bail bond in the sum ofRs.15,000/- each with one surety ofeach of the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe arresting officer/I.O./SHO concerned,petitioners shall be released on bail. Petitioners shall not ® do anything which may prejudice the investigation, trial or the prosecution witnesses.

9. Petitions are allowed in the aboveterms.

10. Order dasti under signaturesofCourtMaster. SANii^EVSACHDEVA,J FEBRUARY 22,2019 Mk