Mohd Alam Mansoor v. State Govt. of NGT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 04 May 2017 · 2017:DHC:8379
S. P. Garg
BAIL APPLN. 1080/2015
2017:DHC:8379
criminal appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of extortion and criminal conspiracy where allegations were contradicted and petitioners cooperated with investigation.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
-t- , BAIL APPLN. 1080/2015 MOHD ALAM MANSOORI
Petitioner - Through : Mr.Kunwar C.M.Khan and
Ms.Aasma Chaudhary, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NGT OF DELHI Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP-.
SI Sumer Singh, PS Sarita Vihar.
BAIL APPLN. 1918/2015
YAMINKI-IAN , Petitioner
Through : Mr.Kunwar C.M.Khan and Ms.Aasma Chaudhaiy, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
SI Sumer Singh, PS Sarita Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
BAIL APPLN. 1080/2015 &connededmailer Page Iof3
2017:DHC:8379
04.05.2017
ORDER

1. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.351/2015 registered under Section 384/120B IPG at Police Station Sarita Vihar. Status report is on record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioners Mohd. Alam Mansoor and Yamin Khan were granted interim protection vide orders dated 29.5.2015 and 14.9.2015 respectively. They were directed to join the investigation as and when required. Undisputedly, the petitioners have joined the investigation since then. The present FIR was lodged on 30.4.2015 on the complaint of Aftab Khan related to the petitioner Yamin Khan. There were allegations against Aftab Khan regarding commission of rape upon a lady 'X' (assumed name). She, however, allegedly •informed the police subsequently that false allegations of rape were levelled against the complainant on the instigation ofthe petitioners to force him to settle the dispute with his wife.

3. In the complaint lodged by complainant Aftab Khan, he has disclosed that few days-before, the petitioners had met him and had demanded ^3,00,00.0/- or else to defame him. No such payment was made by the complainant to any of the petitioners. The complainant also did not lodge any complaint, whatsoever, against any of the petitioners at that time. It is unclear as to under what circumstances 'X' lodged complaint regarding commission of rape against the complainant and how immediately she opted to resile from it. BAIL APPLN. 1080/2015 &connectedmatter Page 2of[3] /

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ^40,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer with the condition that they shalljoin the investigation as and when required.

5. The bail applications stand disposed of..P.GARG, J MAY 04, 2017 BAHAPPLN. 1080/2015 & connected matter Page 3 of[5]