Surender Arora v. State

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1867/2017 SURENDER ARORA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Yudhishter Sharma and Mr. Keshav Parashar, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Meenakshi DAhiya, APP for State with ASI Rajender Singh, PS Geeta Colony

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 20.09.2017 Crl. M.A. No. 15513/2017 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1867/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has neither executed the agreement to sell in question nor has witnessed the same. He further submits that there are no allegations about any money being paid to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the only allegation against him is that the deal was struck through him and the documents were executed in his office. Learned APP submits that the deal was struck through the petitioner, inasmuch as, documents were executed in his office, therefore, he is actively involved in the deal with respect to the property. However, the fact remains that no material could be recovered by investigator till now, to show that document has been executed by the

petitioner.

Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. However, the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon to do so. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 sm