Bharat Bhushan Oberai v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi
a $-35, 57 & *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2756/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47900/2018 BHARAT BHUSHAN OBERAI Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ashok Kapoor & Mr. A.K.
Mehta, Advs.
versus THE STATE OF NOT OF DELm Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Satender Kumar, PS KNKMarg.
Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Adv. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2759/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47926/2018 SUSmL KAPOOR Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ashok Kapoor & Mr. A.K.
Mehta, Advs.
versus THE STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Satender Kumar, PS KNKMarg.
Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Adv. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2762/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47948/2018 SANJEEV KAPOOR Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ashok Kapoor & Mr. A.K.
Mehta, Advs.
versus BAIL APPLN. 2756/2018 & conn.
page I of3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
THE STATE OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with SI Satender Kumar, PS KNK Marg.
Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Adv. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER
% 04.12.2018 I V The allegations have been made against three petitioners herein in FIR no.407/2018 of police station KN Katju Marg involving offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPG), the said FIR having been registered on the statement of Varsha Oberoi, the wife of Aman Kapoor, the petitioners Sanjeev Kapoor and Sushil Kapoor being his maternal uncle {Mama) and petitioner Bharat Bhushan Oberoi being his father (father-in-law to the complainant). It is alleged that all the three accused persons along with other relatives of the maternal family have been torturing the complainant for last some period, these petitioners having been f"
committed assault on the person of the first informant with the intent to outrage her modesty, they having torn her clothes and disrobing her, having extended threats, all in the effort of forcing her out from the premises. The petitioners claim is that the allegations are false and unfounded, they having recorded a telephonic conversation between Neena Oberoi (mother-in-law of the complainant) and the first informant on the same evening where she had extended threats to get the maternal family members falsely implicated. Copy of the transcript of the telephonic conversation BAIL APPLN. 2756/2018 & com.
referred to has been placed on record. But, even if it was assumed that the said transcript is a true record of the conversation that had taken place there is nothing to indicate that there was a threat to create a false case against the petitioners. The first informant does appear from the said transcript to be quite perturbed and disturbed, she indicating lodging of cases but not necessarily on false averments. The assertion that the petitioners were not present at the scene at the alleged time of occurrence relates to the plea of ) V.- alibi for which they have not furnished any proof with these petitions. Having regard to the nature of the offences involved, and the evidence so far gathered, as indicated by the status report, it cannot be said that the case is wholly unfounded. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The petitions with accompanying applications are dismissed. t R.K.GA1Q0A,^ DECEMBER 04, 2018 nk rBAIL APPLN. 2 756/2018 (S conn.