Pankaj Garg v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 568/2018 PANKAJ GARG ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Adv.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP with SI Nirmala, P.S. Shakarpur

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 03.12.2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecutrix is aged about 36 years and is a doctor.

Petitioner is 10 years younger to the prosecutrix.

Petitioner and prosecutrix were in a relationship in the year 2010. Their relationship continued for few years. After their relationship broke off, petitioner married some other girl. Prosecutrix was aware of this fact.

Later on the prosecutrix started blackmailing the petitioner. She started demanding money from him.

She had been in touch with the petitioner, his father and his sister on phone in this regard. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Palwal on 25th September,

2016. It is submitted that petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned APP has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner. She submits that petitioner established physical relations with prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her in the year 2010. Thereafter he continued to exploit the prosecutrix till the end of 2017. Even after his marriage in the year 2014 with another girl, petitioner remained in touch with the prosecutrix and established physical relations with her. Prosecutrix came to know for the first time on 25th December, 2017 that petitioner got married to some other girl in the year 2014. Accordingly, prosecutrix lodged the present FIR on 5th January, 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the telephonic conversations dated 24th September, 2017, which prosecutrix had with his father, has intended that prosecutrix was well aware about the marriage of petitioner even prior to 25th December 2017. In her said conversation, she told the father of petitioner that petitioner had promised her that he will leave his wife to marry her. Petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 13th March, 2018, which is still continuing. Petitioner has joined the investigation. Keeping in mind the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, it

is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 03, 2018 r.bararia