Manoj Soni v. State

$~33 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 305/2019 MANOJ SONI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State with SI Amit Tyagi, P.S. Karol Bagh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 05.02.2019 As per the FIR, petitioner had taken 1710 grams gold from the complainant with the assurance that he would make the payment after threefour days. However, he did not make payment to the complainant; instead represented that the gold was robbed from him by some unknown person. Petitioner even approached the police station Adarsh Nagar for registering the FIR regarding the alleged incident of robbery. However, his version was not found truthful by the police as petitioner, during the enquiry, admitted that no such robbery took place. No FIR was registered. Learned APP submits that during the investigation of present FIR, one Manoj Sharma made a statement that petitioner had approached him with a request to arrange some person who may cause a blade injury to him, as he wanted to lodge a case of robbery of gold from him. It is further submitted

that the petitioner is not living at the address given by him in the present anticipatory bail application. Petitioner's mother has told the Investigating Officer that petitioner is not living there.

It is submitted that custodial interrogation is required, inasmuch as, gold is to be recovered.

Keeping in mind the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner. Bail application is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2019 ga