Mohd. Zahid v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 737/2016 MOHD. ZAHID ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Chand Ravi and Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Rampal Singh, PS- Ghazipur

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 06.04.2016 The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.727/2015, under Section 498-A IPC, registered at Police StationGhazipur, Delhi. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would urge that no notice, as mandated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. has ever been issued to him. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would then urge that the complainant, who is the estranged wife of the applicant herein, has instituted the subject FIR, in order to harass him.

On the other hand, Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP appearing on behalf of the police, on instructions from the IO in the subject FIR, namely, SI Rampal Singh, Police Station- Ghazipur invites my attention to the record to urge that notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant at his address in the State of Jharkhand as well as at the address furnished by the applicant in the memo of parties in the present application. Insofar as, the said notice issued at the Jharkhand address is concerned, the same was returned with a remark attributed to the parents of the applicant

that he does not reside with them. Insofar as, the address furnished by the applicant himself in the present bail application is concerned, the same relates to a property that is non-existent.

Further, the applicant steadfastly refused to join the investigation and is evading execution of the non-bailable warrants issued against him by the court of the concerned Magistrate. Permission to arrest the applicant has already been obtained prior to the issuance of the said non-bailable warrants. In view of the foregoing, the conduct of the applicant disentitles him to grant of any pre-arrest bail. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2012) 8 SCC 730. The courts ought not to come to the aid of an applicant who has wilfully and steadfastly evaded the process of law. The application is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 06, 2016 dn