Jyoti v. State (Gnctd)

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2233/2018 JYOTI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajnikant, Adv.

versus STATE (GNCTD) ..... Respondent Through Dr.

M.P.

Singh, APP with ASI Umesh Kumar, P.S. Mandawali Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

with respondent no. 2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 06.12.2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant is petitioner's husband.

There is marital discord between them.

Cases are pending between them in Rohtak.

Petitioner has been implicated falsely.

Petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of incident. In the CCTV footage, co-accused Kuldeep was seen. Kuldeep has already been arrested and enlarged on bail.

There is nothing against the petitioner except the disclosure statement of co-accused.

Petitioner is willing and ready to participate in the investigation.

Learned APP, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the

complainant has opposed this bail application. It is submitted that petitioner has initiated criminal cases against the complainant in Rohtak after the registration of the present case.

Co-accused has disclosed that he had committed theft at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner had produced two pairs of tops, one ring and one chain before the Investigating Officer during the investigation and remaining articles have yet to be recovered. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail, subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 06, 2018 r.bararia