Fardeen v. The State Of NCT Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3499/2022 FARDEEN ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Kartik Gaur and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advs.
versus THE STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through:
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State.
Mr.
Navin Sharma, Adv.
for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN % 04.04.2024
O R D E R
1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 126/2022 under Sections 384/452/506/147/149/323/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pul Prahladpur.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant Sandeep Sharma, who is a contractor, with the allegations that he is receiving ransom calls from co-accused Lavish Tanwar through co-accused Vijyant Bidhuri @ Chutki in the name of the Himanshu Bidhuri.
3.
It is further alleged that on 14.02.2022, the complainant saw accused Lavish Tanwar, Pradeep Lohia, Tapis Bidhuri and the present petitioner along with their associates came there on two vehicles (make Range Rover and Toyota Etios) and two wheelers and started beating the operators and drivers.
4.
This Court while issuing notice in the anticipatory bail application had 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 15/04/2024 at 11:41:03
granted interim protection to the present petitioner subject to his joining investigation.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined investigation as and when called upon by the I.O concerned. 6.
On the other hand, the learned APP, on instructions from the I.O, submits that the petitioner has though joined investigation but he is not cooperating in the investigation, in as much as, neither he has handed over his mobile nor he is disclosing the names of the unknown persons who had accompanied co-accused on 14.02.2022.
7.
A perusal of the Status Report shows that the petitioner/ accused was found present at the spot as seen in the CCTV footage. The CDRs of the petitioner's mobile number were analysed which also reveals that the applicant was present at the spot on 14.02.2022. 8.
It is also mentioned in the Status Report that there are several complaints against the petitioner regarding indirect threat given by him. Further, he is a relative of BC of Govindpuri, who is a co-accused with the petitioner in another case registered at PS Vasant Kunj. 9.
The petitioner despite having been granted interim protection by this Court has not even cooperated in the investigation. 10.
In view of the above, no ground is made out for confirming the interim protection granted to him. Accordingly, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J APRIL 4, 2024/dss 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 15/04/2024 at 11:41:03