Surbhi v. The State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi).

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2148/2024 SURBHI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Rajat Singh, Advocate through VC with Mr.Amit Bhardwaj and Mr.Ashok, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI).

..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Satish Kumar, APP for State with SI Narender Singh, PS Kalkaji.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

O R D E R

% 24.06.2024 CRL.M.A. 18451/2024 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2148/2024 1.

This is an application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

SI Narender Singh, Police Station Kalkaji is present. 3.

The present FIR was registered on 06.11.2023. 4.

The prosecution case is that on 30.09.2023 at about 3.30 PM, the applicant/accused met with the complainant in a pub and mixed his The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2024 at 12:14:39

drink with some sedative/intoxicant. On the complainant becoming unconscious, his gold ring, chain, kada and Rs.15,000/- in cash besides 4 ATM cards were stolen. Subsequently, the complainant also discovered that Rs.25,000/- had been transferred from his account to the account of an unknown person i.e. Lakshmi Chand. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which was evidently recorded on 06.11.2023. It is also urged that the allegations levelled in the complaint are also not believable.

6.

Per contra, it has been pointed out by the learned APP for State that the applicant/accused is involved in three other criminal cases which are reflected in the custody certificate (Annexure P-3). It is vehemently urged that the applicant/accused has been adopting the same modus operandi, and thereby, duping gullible male-victims. 7.

Having regard to the fact that while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.06.2024, even the learned ASJ, South East District Saket had an occasion to look into the entire CCTV footage and prima facie found the involvement of the applicant/accused in commission of the offence alleged, which aspect is not under challenge, this Court is not inclined to consider the grant of relief in the application moved.

8.

The application is dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 24, 2024 VLD The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2024 at 12:14:39