Taruna v. State(Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 804/2015 TARUNA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms Naina Kejriwal and Mr Sanjeev Jyoti, Advocates.

versus STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:

Ms Radhika Kolluru, APP.

SI Sachin Yadav, PS- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 18.03.2016 The present is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.62/2015 under Sections 420 IPC registered at Police Station- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Ms Radhika Kolluru, learned APP, states that the applicant has joined investigation and is cooperating with it. Ms Kolluru further states that in view of the foregoing the police does not require the custodial interrogation of the applicant.

The applicant has clean antecedents and there is neither any hint nor allegation that she shall not be available to stand trial or that she will influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. The complainant in the subject FIR, it is stated, is already in the possession of the subject property, the dispute over which led to the registration of the subject FIR. In view of the foregoing no useful purpose will be served by requiring the custodial interrogation of the applicant. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. In the event of her arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on her

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House Incharge subject to the further conditions that:- (i) She shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and make her available for questioning as and when called by a police officer;

(ii) She shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

(iii) She shall not approach the complainant or influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 18, 2016 mk