Ajay Kumar Narang v. State

13# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1998/2016 AJAY KUMAR NARANG ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Ajay Paul, Advocate.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:

Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI R.P. Singh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 18.01.2017 1.

By the present petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.343/2016 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC registered at PS Dwarka, South, Delhi on the complaint of one Inder Mohan Sethi. 2.

In the FIR the complainant alleged that he was running a business of Khoya and Paneer at Shop No. 33, LSC Sheikh Sarai. The petitioner was running a medical store in his neighbourhood in the same market along with his wife in the name of Arkay Medicos. The petitioner represented to the complainant that on investment into his business he would get assured returns. He also assured that his shop Arkay Medicos was free from any encumbrances and he never received a loan. On the endorsement of the petitioner the complainant purchased medicines for running the medical shop and paid a sum of ₹19 lakhs through cheques and entered into agreement to transfer of business. After the agreement was entered into, the BAIL APPLN. 1998/2016

petitioner prepared forged rent receipts, lease agreement of his shop No. 33, LSC, Sheikh Sarai and submitted these forged documents with the office of the Drug Controller. The medicines sold to the complainant were after the period of expiry and without any vouchers.

3.

After this Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner several efforts were made to trace the petitioner and as per the status report he has changed number of the residences in the meantime. After the order dated 28th September, 2016 the petitioner once visited the police station and met the investigating officer and on the assurance that he would come again no notice was served but he did not appear. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not disclosing his proper address, his whereabouts are not traceable, and for the allegations in the FIR, this Court finds no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

Petition is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JANUARY 18, 2017 'vn'

BAIL APPLN. 1998/2016