Sanjay Mehandiratta v. State

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1831/2016 & Crl.M.A. 13964/2016 (stay) SANJAY MEHANDIRATTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir & Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vikram Dua, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with Insp. Sandeep Gupta, DIV/West

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 21.12.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant Ashok Oberoi fortifies this fact. Copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14th December, 2016 has been handed over which is taken on record.

Learned APP for the State submits that the allegation of the petitioner that the complainant was running a betting racket was not substantiated during the course of investigation as half of the phone numbers were found to be switched off during the relevant period and user of the rest of the phones were as normal.

Considering the fact that parties have settled the matter this court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that he will join the investigation as and when directed and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned. Petition and application are disposed of. Order dasti. MUKTA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 21, 2016 sm