Dalip Kumar v. The State ( Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)

$~1 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2224/2018 & CRL.M.A. 32744/2018 DALIP KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.D.K.Devesh, Adv.

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

Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP with Insp.Lokendra, P.S.Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 20.02.2019 1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.172/2018 under Sections 384/420/468/463/471/34/120-B IPC, Police Station Crime Branch. 2.

Allegations in the FIR are that the co accused had befriended the complainant through social media and thereafter extracted approximately Rs.11 crores on the pretext of medical treatments as well as subsequently on threats of defaming him.

3.

The allegation is that the co accused in his disclosure statement stated that he had paid approximately Rs.14 lakhs to the petitioner besides purchasing two four wheelers and one two-wheeler for the benefit of the petitioner and that he is also in league with them in the entire transaction with the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that he further paid Rs.3 crores to the petitioner.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is a timber merchant and had commercial transactions with the father of the person who is alleged to have extorted money and the payment was made towards BAIL APPLN.2224/2018

the business transactions which are also reflected in the GST returns filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged disclosure statement makes a distinction between the name of the persons to whom Rs.14 lakhs is paid and said amount of Rs.3 crores. He further submits that apart from the alleged disclosure statement there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

5.

By order dated 24.09.2018 petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.

6.

Learned APP under instructions submits that petitioner has joined investigation and since no incriminating material was found against the petitioner at this stage and in the charge sheet filed petitioner's name has been mentioned in Column No.12 and as such there is no apprehension of arrest.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner has not been charge sheeted, there is no apprehension of arrest. Accordingly he seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach again in case needs so arises.

8.

The petition is accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner as prayed for.

9.

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2019/rk BAIL APPLN.2224/2018