Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr.Yogesh Swaroop, Adv. For the Respondent: Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State with SI Nitu Kumar, P.S.Geeta Colony.
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.467/2017 under Sections 419/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC at Police Station Geeta Colony.
2. Allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that the co-accused is alleged to have told the complainant, subsequent to a raid by BSES officials that he would be in a position to have the matter settled with the BSES team. Thereafter the complainant is allegedly been approached by one Pankaj Dhawan who is alleged to have called up the petitioner over phone and made the petitioner speak to the complainant. 2018:DHC:4537 BAIL APPLN. 205/2018
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated and as per the allegations no demand or payment was made to the petitioner. Further there has been a settlement between Pankaj Dhawan and the complainant.
4. Learned APP informs that the petitioner had joined investigation and the investigation is complete and chargesheet is in the process of being filed.
5. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on, petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY 26, 2018 rk