Ronak v. The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 26.11.2018 + BAIL APPLN. 1829/2018 RONAK ..... Petitioner versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Rajiv Sirohi, Adv.

For the Respondent:

Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with Insp.Surender Singh, DIU CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

26.11.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 323/34 IPC Police Station: Mukherjee Nagar (Now transferred to Police Station: DIU Cell). 2.

The allegations in the FIR are that the earlier tenant of the property along with co-accused including the petitioner had come in the property and misbehaved with the sister of the landlord and her mother. Consequent to which, they sustained injuries.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was not even present in the subject property and he was in Jind, Haryana, where he BAIL APPLN. 1829/2018

is a permanent resident.

4.

It is further submitted that as per the allegations themselves, the coaccused was a tenant in the property and was running a Paying Guest Facility. He submits that several complaints were made by the girls, who were staying as PGs that they were being threatened by the landlord. Even a Civil Suit has been filed.

5.

Petitioner was granted interim protection by order dated 21.01.2018 subject to joining investigation. Learned APP under instructions submits that petitioner did join investigation and investigation is nearly complete. 6.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, and on perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

8.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 9.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. NOVEMBER 26, 2018/rk SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J BAIL APPLN. 1829/2018