Om Prakash Singh v. The State(NCT Of Delhi)
$~4 to 6 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1416/2018 AMIT RAWAL Petitioner Through : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through; Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Suresh Pal, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1417/2018 URMILA DEVI Petitioner Through : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Suresh Pal, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1421/2018 OM PRAKASH SINGH Petitioner Through ; Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Suresh Pal, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
o/o 22.02.2019 1.
Petitioners, seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.70/2018 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG, Police Station Keshav Puram. Subsequently during investigation. Section 313 IPG has been added. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated and they have cooperated with the investigation and have even offered to return all articles. 3.
By order dated 03.07.2018, petitioners were given interim bail subject to joining the investigation.
4.
Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that petitioners have joined investigation and had cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that petitioner had even brought all the articles which were admittedly in their power and possession for return to the complainant however, complainant declined to accept those articles. However, one Mahindra XUV vehicle, which was alleged to have been given to the husband by the girl side was returned and the documents thereof have already been transferred in the name of the complainant.
I 5.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that all the articles, which were given by the girl side have not yet been returned and what was offered to be returned was not in a fit condition to be taken. He submits that the Mahindra XUV was sold and the sale proceeds were collected by the husband in cash and he gave his cheque for the said amount. This is disputed by the Petitioners. 6.
Learned AFP for the State submits that petitioners have joined investigation and investigation is nearly completed and as of now petitioners are not required to join the investigation. 7.
Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 8.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest, on the petitioners furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety of each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./SHO concerned, petitioners shall be released on bail. Petitioners shall not ® do anything which may prejudice the investigation, trial or the prosecution witnesses.
9.
Petitions are allowed in the above terms.
10. Order dasti under signatures of Court Master. SANii^EV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 22,2019 Mk